cutesd Exactly what is supposed to be our take away from this film? Ten minutes in we are privy to two police officers beating and torturing a prisoner in order to coerce a confession. The man is sentenced to death after a joke of a trial with little to no evidence. A Harvard professor is begged by the prisoner's desperate grandmother to appeal the case. The professor takes it on, gets the man freed ... only for him to turn out to be a psychopath and a murderer because he was castrated while imprisoned overnight for another crime he didn't commit.So the guy ends up being guilty ... so it was supposed to be OK that the police beat a confession out of him? Or that he wound up on death row with little to no evidence to put him there? We're supposed to side with the cops who beat the guy up? Or the system that caused him to be castrated and become a psychopath in the first place?I mean seriously what are we supposed to gather from this film? Whose side are we supposed to be on? Is this film supposed to be anti-death-penalty or for it because it can't seem to make up its mind. And to all the people reading this review and saying "it's just a movie, you're taking it too seriously" I'm sorry but there are thousands of railroaded people in prison right now, likely several innocent people currently on death row. It seems to me a movie like this only muddies the issue or tries to make light of a serious problem within our justice system. In either case I find it profoundly disturbing.

g-bodyl Just Cause is unapologetically conventional, especially since it produces a "factory-produced" script. But that being said, I actually sort of enjoyed the movie. When you pour a cup of Silence with the Lambs into a batter of Se7en, Just Cause is the outcome. The film is moody and tense and there is more action than I thought there would be. The film has some good lines, mainly by the great Sean Connery, who is a hallowed presence in the movie.Arne Glimcher's film is about a Harvard law professor who decides to reopen a murder case, eight years after the case closed due to a plea of innocence. The victim, in these circumstances, is a man named Bobby Earl who was found guilty of murdering an eleven-year-old girl. Earl pleads his innocence saying that he was coerced by the local police in admitting his guilt. Now the lawyer, Paul Armstrong must get to the bottom on what actually occurred.The film has a stacked cast and they each play to their strengths. Sean Connery is excellent and he makes any film watchable. Laurence Fishburne brings a formidable and rather eerie presence. Ed Harris is fantastic in his small role as a serial killer locked in prison. This film is also one of the early roles for the talented Scarlett Johannson.Overall, Just Cause is about as ordinary a thriller you can find. But I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It provides enough thrills for my liking, and there was even an unexpected twist towards the end. I also loved the location of the film, namely the Everglades. It gives the film a more creepy vibe, as we get to keep one eye towards the alligators. The script is nothing new, but I enjoyed the film nonetheless. Most likely because of the very talented cast. I rate this film 8/10.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Jackson Booth-Millard I will admit I didn't pay full attention to this when it was on, but I did get the gist I needed to, and I suppose it isn't bad. Basically law professor Paul Armstrong (Sir Sean Connery) is given a letter by Evangeline (Ruby Dee), grandmother of Bobby Earl (Blair Underwood), and he wants him to prove his innocence. Bobby claims to be wrongly convicted for the kidnap, rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, committed eight years ago, and he faces the electric chair. So the rest of the film is mainly Paul, with some help from Sheriff Tanny Brown (Laurence Fishburne), questioning the suspects from all those years ago, including imprisoned criminal Blair Sullivan (Ed Harris). It has some red-herrings along the way, and it turns out in the end that Bobby did have something to do with it after all, and he kidnaps Paul's wife Laurie Prentiss Armstrong (Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Doom's Kate Capshaw) and daughter Katie (little and recognisable Scarlett Johansson) near the end for the final showdown. Also starring Christopher Murray as Detective T.J. Wilcox, Daniel J. Travanti as Warden and Ned Beatty as McNair. Connery is always likable with that Scottish accent, even in a small role Harris adds some needed kick, and the story isn't too bad, from what I paid attention to anyway, not bad. Worth watching!