MovieChat Forums > Reversal of Fortune (1990) Discussion > Pros and Cons of 'Reversal of Fortune'

Pros and Cons of 'Reversal of Fortune'

posted 14 years ago by snorlax3111984
4 replies | jump to latest

Pro:
1. As I'm sure is the case with many of you, I saw this film primarily because I wanted to see Jeremy Irons' Oscar-winning performance (this is the 54th film I've seen that earned a Best Actor Oscar). I really like what Irons does with the role. Even if the guy's innocent he's clearly not someone you want to spend extended time with (a tribute to Irons' psysical expressions and how he speaks his lines). I'll never hear the name Jeremy Irons without thinking of Scar from the Lion King, but it's nice to know Jeremy Irons has done other equally brilliant work.

2. The best scenes in the film are Alan Dershowitz instructing his students. I think the film justified its nomination for Adapted Screenplay Oscar just because of Alan Dershowitz's monologue on why the guilty deserve to be represented.

3. It's implied that Alan Dershowitz has a history with Sarah. Thanks to the writers for keeping that subject brief and focusing on the trial.

4. The art direction is great, not just the Von Bülow mansion but all the sets look great.

5. You have to admire the film's biting commentary: a wealthy Caucasian man everyone thinks is up to no good is set free while innocent poor African-Americans sit on death row for a crime they did not commit.

6. Yeah! Alan Dershowitz is a Celtics fan!

7. I love the joke Alan Dershowitz tells (death penalty? It's not a penalty, you're out of the game)

8. One of the best closing lines ever:
Pharmacist: Can I get you anything else?
Claude von Bürlow: insulin (Pharmacist is horrified) just kidding

Con
1. No Oscar nomination for Ron Silver? Academy, you gotta lotta esplainin' to do!

[–] arman0612 14 years ago

Another con in my opinion was Glenn Close not getting a nomination either, she was perfect as Sunny, one of her best performances ever.

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

I thought Barbet Schroeder wasn't the best choice as director. With his lead actors he did all right enough, but he is a director that insists on color from every single supporting character. It worked in "Barfly", but I think the film would have been better serviced with a more muted and ominous tone rather than the almost-comedy it was through a great portion of it.

“No man can be a genius in slapshoes and a flat hat.” - Buster Keaton

[–] jk80 12 years ago

Hmm yes top marks for the performances, but I thought it strange that it cut away from what in most other legal films would be critical moments. I mean the trial scene was about 2 minutes and that's it, then later we find out they won. It's an interesting choice, backs up Ebert's point that the film is more about characters than it is the law. I didn't necessarily have a problem with this choice as the character stuff is done well, and we find out the main arguments from the trial during the defence's preparations.

[–] brendanchenowith 11 years ago

I think Christine Baranski's performance was another pro. When I first saw this film, she hadn't played Marianne on Cybill yet. I had no idea who she was, but she made such an indelible impression. Years later, I found out it was she who played Andrea, went back to watch it again and it was magical. She really stole the scene, as only Marianne could do.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.