Nuts (1987)

What makes it different from others?

Truly Dreadful Film

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Women falling victim of sex crimes? Happens all the time. What if your job profession was...prostitution? Should you still be protected under law, when you're doing something illegal? Here's something else the film tackles, and it adds a strong foundation to the mix: What if you could not think in a linear way? Meaning, your mind is just not wired like your usual Sam, Tam or Sally? Would you be able to stand trial, or would you be deemed incapable by the court because you are, as the movie puts it, "Nuts". Even if a woman is crazy, they should still not fall victim to a sex crime, which is what happens to our lead female ( played by Streisand). When she kills the man who viciously attacked her in self defense, she wants to be her own lawyer for the trial. The entire premise of the movie just revolves around her arguing with her lawyer and defense attourneys of the state weather she has the mental capacity to stand trial. And while the movie fails to deliver the goods on how the trial is all played out, we will never see the real court case, the movie just simply demands the "yes" or "no" question. Does it work? In a word, yes! This isn't a typical court room movie where we find out if she's guilty or innocent, Nuts just simply asks the question...can a woman deemed crazy be qualified to be her own lawyer at trial. While she does seem a bit off in her thinking, at times, she can be powerfully witty, which adds plenty of humor to the film. I also liked the realism of the use of the courtroom, its very believable, unlike some other cheesy attempts made in other films. ( What was it with those vibrant colors used in all those 80's movies, anyway?) All in all, Nuts is a winner, almost clocked in at two hours, but does not bore you, even for a minute. It's a movie that proves that sometimes, your sanity cannot be put on trial, even if you're trying to plead temporary insanity.

In this movie, Barbra Streisand is victimized by everyone -- her parents, the justice system, the johns she entertains -- and therefore the movie qualifies for entry into the genre of fantasy.Streisand, a hooker, has a court hearing before a judge, the always admirable James Whitmore, to decide if she's too crazy to stand trial for manslaughter one, after killing a client who was apparently about to kill her.It's her intent to be judged sane enough to stand trial and what she wants, she gets. She's defended by Richard Dreyfus and prosecuted by Robert Webber. Her parents, Maureen Stapleton and Karl Malden, attend the two-day hearing.Streisand's character was raised in a rather well-off middle-class family, but her life has been chaotic, misbehavior in high school, the collapse of a ten-year marriage, smoking (gulp) marijuana, and finally becoming a high-end prostitute. Streisand interrupts the highly ritualized hearing by banging on glass tumblers, shouting, and otherwise disrupting the tranquility of the court.Leslie Nielsen is the client who tries to kill her. She kills him instead, by stabbing him in the neck with a sharp shard of broken mirror, which is a common Hollywood convention, akin to knocking an opponent out by butting forehead, but it's still a violation of Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Anyway, there is obviously going to be a damned good reason for Streisand's unusual behavior. It's pretty generic. All the men in her life have been idiots, just as most of the men in this movie are. But the moment it was disclosed that Karl Malden was merely her stepfather, not her biological parent, we knew we were to be faced with the iron causality of childhood sexual abuse.Streisand is a curiously attractive woman with considerable acting talent and a fine singing voice. But she has an ego the size of New Guinea. To her coworkers, she is as the nutcracker is to the walnut. So it's easy to see why she would find this role suitable. She gets to tell everybody off and insult them freely. The script makes it easy for her because, aside from Whitmore's judge and Dreyfus' defense attorney, everybody from the doctor on down is a liar and a moron.The drama itself is a little sluggish but interesting in its details. Even sluggish courtroom dramas are interesting though, if they're at all well done, as this one is. Of course, Streisand's character could have obviated the mishigas if she had just taken the stand and told the truth right off the bat, but if she'd done that there would have been no movie. It would have been like Hamlet killing Claudius at the beginning, or the Indians shooting the horses instead of trying to pick off the stagecoach passengers.

In quick Review: Daughter protects her life and is charged with manslaughter in the first... but is she competent to stand trial and aid in her own defense?...that's the simple question the plot hinges upon... and it serves as a good vehicle to make social comments about molestation, freedom of speech, professional diligence, justice, anger management, tolerance, and most of all COURAGE to stand for one's beliefs.The critical moments when daughter looks at mom and when the pain from cross examining the step dad... and then mom and daughter forgave...that's what movies are about... this should be required viewing for all young people by the eight grade... wake up America !!!

Yes, the multi-talented Richard Dreyfuss makes a great lawyer.There's something about him that just kicks everything he does into high gear - even if it's a crappy movie in general.He's gone that sparkle that not many others have.He's got more sparkle than Al Pacino and De Niro.If I were to go on trial for a serious crime, I would want Richard Dreyfuss backing me up...The movie was OK, I don't think she was nuts from the very opening scene, not any of the rest of the movie made me think she was nuts - so why would anybody else think she was nuts? I guess because it needed a title and every other court room title was taken.Anyways, it's a decent movie - nothing too exuberant and nothing award winning, but the roles for most actors were pretty darn good and because of Richard's screen charisma, it get's a 7.