Trial and Error (1997)

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

What happens when a lawyer gets so drunk that in the morning he cannot make his court case and his friend has to cover for him? Well this movie outlines it quite well. The plot is interesting but the movie is nothing more than pure stupidity. The judge does not seem to be at all interested in actually running the case while the lawyer, Jeff Daniels, turns out to be nothing more than a bumbling fool.His friend, the one who takes over the case for him, knows absolutely nothing about law and can do absolutely nothing with out his friend beside him (or at least in communication range). Yet the movie always takes the lawyer away to leave us laughing at the ineptitude of the friend, who happens to be an actor.This movie really has nothing that makes it stand out. The lawyer is engaged to be married to a rich girl who is the daughter of the boss of the law firm for whom he works, but he gives her up for a sweet city girl come country girl who has a humble background. The actor is chasing one particular woman all the way through the movie, that is the prosecutor, and gets away with things such as sexual harassment. In the end he lands up with her, which is very typical of Hollywood.The name of the town, Paradise Bluff, brings up some thoughts, as if it is a place that on the outside seems perfect, but deep within there is some rotting evil. In this movie though, there is no allusion, nor is there any hidden evil. Paradise Bluff is a Paradise where the heroes live happily ever after.In my opinion, Trial and Error is a very dull movie with little to no comedy in it at all. It is not worth hiring, nor is it worth wasting one's time watching it on TV. The only time one should even consider watching this movie is when you are stuck on a bus between Adelaide and Sydney, and there is no way off.

Well, I loved it. But I felt it could have had more laughs. Take for instance the improvisations of the substitute lawyer, they were all disappointed. The matter of missing the session by mixed horns, it wasn't exploited well. Or the character of the judge; all out of use. In brief; every time this movie has the opportunity to make fun, it retracts. Is it laziness ? Average sense of comedy ? Whatever the reason is, while having the irony (Trial and Error) doesn't use it well, or doesn't use it.On the contrary, it has so wonderful meaning about stopping the lying, in a way most of the similar movies didn't have. The moment of the concluding pleading is heartwarming and overwhelming. It sums up the movie's core perfectly. Sad that with stronger comedy, this could have been evenly perfect movie itself.I loved the scene of (Jeff Daniels) talking about the early-brilliant's tragedy, the one who lives a chain reaction of being superior then less and less as time goes by. It's the scary opposite relationship between intelligence and freedom. More intelligence equals less freedom, hence less happiness. This movie shows it in impressive simplicity, running as a play on the main theme as well, whereas the character used to lie, yet on himself, as if he's happy while he isn't. Slight bugging matters : the strange biker had been pictured first as (Daniels)'s attention line and fascinating fantasy (with one important zoon-in); that was confusing a bit, especially when we discover lately that she'd be his friend's girl. Then, how come (Charlize Theron) forgave (Daniels) that simple, I still can't explain the big hug near the end knowing the hurting slap she got hours ago by his arrogant fiancée ?! And lastly, the movie leaves us, incredibly happy, while its 2 leading men could, or would, meet many years in jail for what they already have done. They both are going to be exposed easily. Not to mention what job exactly (Daniels) will have ? I mean when a movie like this doesn't answer questions like these, even by swift answers, then whether it prepares for a sequel or something was hasty about its ending.(Jeff Daniels) is a fair actor, but not a great comedian, besides he lacks the charismatic persona. (Michael Richards) is a nice talent. Look at his super slapstick comedy in his audition scene (I don't know what these examiners were uneasy about ?!). Or to the way he performed his serious scenes. Accordingly I don't know why he couldn't make a cinematic career away from his trademark Cosmo Kramer of "Seinfeld" ?! What I do know is that he didn't have a proper chance to blossom and flourish. (Rip Torn) and (Charlize Theron), with more capturing presence and talent, surpassed (Daniels) and (Richards). (Theron) in specific looked like fresh dream, and despite her short experience back then, she acted so naturally. It's smooth and meaningful afternoon movie. I began to feel that this term, afternoon movie, got a lot to do with the light movies. As if the more complicated or satisfied ones are more fit for the night. As a comedy it could have been better if only it wasn't full of too many anti-climaxes, where you're about to laugh, then you're not. It's where I desired a remake for the very movie I was watching !

Jeff Daniels has made a career of playing straight laced boring dweebs who only need a tiny little push in the opposite direction to make them go wild - he does it again here nicely. Michael Richards is basically playing "Kramer" here but it is funny and likable. And the ever wonderful Rip Torn playing a bad guy you just gotta love. Last but not least, there is the fantastic, pre-Oscar Charlize Theron who lights up the movie with a sweet, naive, free-spirited character whose simple life is something we all wish for sometime in our lives.A great cast rounds out a lighthearted, good-natured, mellow yet cheerful little comedy. You wont be sorry to spend the time with this movie.3/5 StarsAnyone got the recipe for a Paradise Manhattan ?

For what was likely conceived as a PG-13 B-movie comedy, this film has some awfully strange sequences that stayed with me long after seeing it as part of a double bill. They're just out of place in a movie of this sort. Watch the scene where the main characters go to the junkyard to shoot at toilets--they *really* get into the destruction. And the camera shoots the violence as a really vivid thing. It's the sort of slick shoot-em-up filming that's par for the course for Tarantino but is just so discordant in a comedy. Also, watch the scene where one main character punches out the other--there's just *way too much blood* as a result. If you see *any* blood resulting from a PG-13 punch, it's a trickle; in this movie it's a gusher. It's just so odd! This was not a bad movie--but I'm just ooked out by these occasional flashes of uncommonality.