tdrish 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.

tieman64 A weak film by the underrated Martin Ritt, "Nuts" stars Barbra Streisand as a prostitute who is arrested on a manslaughter charge. Richard Dreyfuss plays the lawyer appointed to defend her. The film trades in familiar courtroom clichés, until it climaxes with a series of "shocking revelations".Ritt would be responsible for a series of masterpieces, most notably "Hud", "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold", "The Molly Maguires" and "Sounder". Like most directors who did their best work in the early 1970s and 60s, his subsequent films would become increasingly tainted by the demands of New Hollywood. Of his later films, "Norma Rae", "Stanley and Iris" and "The Front" are generally agreed to be his best. Still, sugary and light, they're a far cry from his earlier, far more mature works. "Nuts" is emblematic of late-Ritt.6.9/10 – Worth one viewing.

Jay Raskin This is the third of three great courtroom dramas from that time. "And Justice for All,"(1979) and "The Verdict," (1982) were the other two.Because of all the courtroom dramas on television in the 1990's and 2000's, many of the things in the movie now seem as clichés. It is important to remember that it was quite original when it came out. It is only cliché today because it has been copied so much since. Women were generally terrible victims of much psychiatry in the 20th century, this film, "Francis" (1982)and "Suddenly, Last Summer" (1959) are the only three movies that really demonstrate that.The cast is full of great actors and actresses in small rolls: Eli Wallach, James Whitmore, Maureen Stapleton, and Karl Malden know that less is more and underplay their roles smoothly. The only problem with the casting is Leslie Nielsen as a crazy client. Nielsen became so associated with spoofs like "Airplane" and "The Naked Gun" one almost laughs automatically when he's on the screen, no matter how serious the scene is. Stars Richard Dreyfus and Barbara Streisand are at the top of their form and work well off each other.The one criticism of this movie that is valid is Streisand's age. She is a bit too old at 45 for the character who is supposed to be in her late 20's. It is a minor irritation, and we should remember that male actors in their 40's also frequently play such roles. For example, Brad Pitt was 41 when he played Achilles, and Sylvester Stallone was 60 when he played in his last "Rocky" movie.This is Barbara Streisand's grittiest movie with rape, incest, and madness being key themes, yet it still has a lot of witty lines and funny moments. It is just well balanced and well done. The DVD contains some fascinating commentary by Ms. Streisand.

thinker1691 After viewing this superior film, a viewer might wonder where in blazes the original idea came from; The Twilight Zone or ripped from todays headlines. This film is laden with so much talent I'm surprised it didn't establish itself as a mega movie. The premise is that of a talented lawyer, Aaron Levinsky, ably played by Richard Dreyfuss, who is forcibly thrust into a competency case which he does not want. His adversary is a formidably D.A, Francis MacMillan (Robert Webber) who has spent a considerable amount of time putting unwanted criminals and mental undesirables, behind bars. Thus he sees no reason why he should spend more time than necessary on a simple case of mental incompetency. Unfortunately for him the woman in question is spirited, independent Claudia Draper, (Barbra Streisand) who is desperate to have her day in court. Arrayed against her aside from the D.A. are her loving parents, Karl Malden as Arthur Kirk and Maureen Stapleton as Rose Kirk, who guard a terrible family secret. In addition, there is formidable Eli Wallach as Dr. Herbert A. Morrison, a psychiatrist who is convinced that Draper is insane. In Claudia's eyes, everyone seems hell bent on having her locked up in insane asylum. The courtroom drama is superior as Judge Stanley Murdoch, (James Whitmore ) tries to discover why the authorities want Draper incarcerated. A most convincing performance by all to create a memorable film. ****