A group of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq struggle to integrate back into family and civilian life, while living with the memory of a war that threatens to destroy them long after they've left the battlefield.
In 1940, Thurgood Marshall is a young lawyer for the NAACP who criss-crosses the country defending innocent African-Americans from unjust indictments in court. His latest case is in Bridgeport, Connecticut where an African-American chauffeur is accused of rape of a wealthy white society woman. To admit Marshall into the local Bar, insurance lawyer Sam Friedman is picked over his objections to do introductions in court. However, Friedman's commitment changes drastically when the racist judge forbids Marshall to speak in court, forcing Friedman to act as lead counsel. Now in an intolerable situation for the pair, Marshall must guide his new compatriot through this criminal trial even as Friedman endures not only this unfamiliar area of law, but also the bigoted pressure he now must share. However, the case proves more complex than either anticipates with unexpected twists and turns even as it becomes a vital one that would define two careers as well as the fight for justice in America.Written by
Kenneth Chisholm (email@example.com)
Several scenes take place outside the courthouse. They were shot on the steps of Buffalo, New York, City Hall. See more »
In the early 1940s, Marshall gives Friedman, whose experience is in civil law, books to get him up to speed on criminal law. However, none of the books focus on criminal law. The first, A Concise Restatement of Torts, Second Edition, about civil law, was published in 1965. The two volumes of Wigmore on Evidence are the McNaughton Revision, published in 1961. Evidentiary law discussed in Wigmore applies in both criminal and civil cases, so Friedman, a trial lawyer, would already be familiar with it. The fourth was Volume 308 of the United States Reports, which published all the US Supreme Court opinions for the 1939 October term. See more »
The Constitution was not written for us. We know that. But no matter what it takes, we're going to make it work for us. From now on, we claim it as our own.
See more »
I can give this movie nothing more than a 5 out of 10. Marshall is a fairly average movie all around. I was expecting a serious toned well made movie telling me something about a future Supreme Court Justice. Instead, I got a lackluster average courtroom drama. The acting is average and the characters are almost cartoon-ish. Had this movie been made in the early 1990's I may have been able to give it a 6, because that is what it feels like. A tired early 1990's courtroom drama. To see people rating this movie a 8, or 9 destroys my faith in humanity as a whole, this was not a great, spectacular movie that will make you think, it's a lazy boring sunday, "because there is nothing on," movie.
It isn't awful just dated. With this being Thurgood Marshall, I was expecting something much more. I was expecting to see something better along the lines of great movies like "A Time to Kill," or something like that. This fell flat by a margin I seriously could not imagine. The dialog is pretty much a caricature that probably was written over the course of a weekend. It's a waste of a good story that could have been great had the film makers taken their time to make it so. As it is, this was likely just greenlighted because of the Marshall name, figuring they could squeeze a few bucks out to make some other flat movie in the future.
Again, a 5 out of 10. Not a horrible movie, just average in so many ways that it fails to even live up to the ratings people have so far given it. I don't know if they are just biased in favor of the great man portrayed, but the movie itself is not the 7.1 out of 10 people are giving it at the time of this review.
12 of 25 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this