By Marc S. Sanders
Two sharp San Francisco attorneys go against one another in Michael Apted’s Class Action. The hitch is that it is father vs daughter and the two were adversarial with each other long before this trial ever began.
Gene Hackman is Jed Ward, the small-time lawyer who grandstands big theatrics in a courtroom while fighting for the little man who’s repeatedly suffered at the negligence of Goliath corporations. His daughter is Margaret Ward played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. She’s vying to be partner for the giant law firm that represents an automobile manufacturer getting sued for faulty explosive gas tanks on their cars.
Jed is bullish and cocky. Margaret is trying to prove her dominance over a father who repeatedly cheated on mom and was hardly the devoted dad as he pursued one landmark case or bed partner after another.
I saw Class Action in college while taking a law studies class. The case at hand was inspired by a well-known trial focused on Ford Pintos. Ford was found to deliberately ignore a faulty car part because the cost to replace the item on all of their automobiles would far outweigh the cost to settle with all of the victims of the class action lawsuit. That’s a neat connection showing what was real being weaved into a fictitious story.
The problem with Apted’s film is the amount of melodramatic scenes devoted to its father and daughter main characters. It’s hammered into our consciousness over and over, and like most arguments they run in circles, getting nowhere. We get it already. You’ve got animosity towards each other. Move along!
The olive branch is eventually extended as the film is approaching its standard third act, conveniently thanks to the giant law firm’s indiscretions to conceal evidence for the sake of victory.
I’m really not spoiling much here. This is a paint by numbers, cookie cutter outline. You can see where everything will fall as soon as the 20th Century Fox logo appears at the beginning.
These are two good actors, but Gene Hackman is far better. Most would agree. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is not a good enough contender against him. Hackman comes off fierce. Mastrantonio comes off hokey like something out of a day time soap opera. She’s been much more impactful in other films like The Color Of Money and even Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.
I argue though that she would have been much more effective if James Horner’s instrumental music wasn’t used so much. I can feel the emotions with just the two playing out their scenes of dialogue and tempers flaring. I shouldn’t need help to get there from a swooning saxophone that intrudes and plays over, of all people, the great Gene Hackman.
Too much is focused on the family melodrama that also includes the mom/wife (Joanna Merlin) caught right in the middle. I got tired of it.
I’m a sucker for courtroom drama. I know. In most movies, you know the beats of a cinematic trial. You can easily predict which witness is going to be undone on the witness stand. You likely will predict who will win the trial. Yet, I get a thrill out of the rapid-fire pace of the questioning and the calls for objections with the barking rulings heaped on by the judge. It’s all standard, but I gobble it up like potato chips. The two leads are marvelous in the courtroom, despite the spoon fed ease the script allows.
When the two are screaming at each other about their past transgressions, I had no interest. The film angles itself as a courtroom thriller with a twist on the litigators when it’s barely that way at all.
It’s right in front of you guys! An astounding case of deliberate negligence by one of the country’s biggest industrialists. Why couldn’t we uncover more of the underhandedness that occurred there? Regrettably, the trial takes second banana to the trite family squabbles with a cheesy late ‘80s soundtrack.
Hard and Fast Rule: Don’t ever play off the great Gene Hackman.
2 UNPAID MOVIE CRITICS!!!! 