A Civil Action Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Justice has its price.
Jan Schlichtmann is a successful lawyer whose practically his own entrepreneur. He's a humble bachelor with a nice car, a nice house, and a career that has amassed huge rewards. Not to mention being the founder and practice of the lucrative law firm he runs with his Boston partners, all in a case's settlement. However, when the families of deceased children sue a giant food conglomerate, with the accusation of their companies are responsible for poisoning their children and afflicting them fatally with cancer. Jan comes to the rescue, thinking it's one more case he can easily knock out of the park and make a fortune, as well as a name for he and his firm. With a class action lawsuit to file, Jan willingly puts himself and his firm as representatives of those families. However, it's one case that could ruin Jan: his pride, his ambition, and ultimately, his career. As the pressures of the case begin to take their turn on both the prosecution, the defense, as well as the families, Jan is about to realize that he has taken on the biggest case of his life, and there is a price to pay.
| John Travolta | Jan Schlichtmann |
| Robert Duvall | Jerome Facher |
| Tony Shalhoub | Kevin Conway |
| William H. Macy | James Gordon |
| Zeljko Ivanek | Bill Crowley |
| Bruce Norris | William Cheeseman |
| John Lithgow | Judge Walter J. Skinner |
| Kathleen Quinlan | Anne Anderson |
| Peter Jacobson | Neil Jacobs |
| Mary Mara | Kathy Boyer |
| James Gandolfini | Al Love |
| Stephen Fry | Pinder |
| Dan Hedaya | John Riley |
| David Thornton | Richard Aufiero |
| Sydney Pollack | Al Eustis |
| Steven Zaillian |
6.30 out of 10 (11890 votes)
Visitor Reviews
All style, but little substance
posted on 26 May 2009Based on a amalgam of true stories, this film is slick, but empty in its understanding of truth as it relates to its characters. Some terrific actors (Lithgow, Shalhoub, etc.) get to waste their talents portraying one-dimensional sleazebags. Travolta is fine in detailing the obsession the lawyer he portrays deals with in trying to do the right thing. Kathleen Quinlan has a terrific high-impact turn in a supporting role. But, A Civil Action is never truly credible because it relies on well-trod and untrue-ringing plot contrivances instead of thoughtfully exploring the real underlying issues. Many friends compared this to Julia Roberts's Erin Brockovich. Unfortunately, this is a lot closer to the equally conspiritor-obsessed mess known as The Pelican Brief. Overall, I found a Civil Action to be extremely disappointing.
Great Story-some people are not well cast for the role
posted on 11 May 2009Read the book, great and fascinating story. I thought Sydney Pollack and other people were excellently casted. John Travolta is not well cast. He has difficulty to get from the flashy to an emotional drained person. May be Richard Gere or Ed Norton would have been better. Go and see the movie.
An Excellent and Entertaining Civil Action!
posted on 26 Apr 2009Okay, I wasn't too keen on courtroom dramas. I only happened to come across this one by accident. I was really impressed but of course, I always get the end of the drama. The cast is first rate with Oscar nominee John Travolta, Emmy Winner Tony Shaloub as his colleague, Oscar nominee William H. Macy as his financial adviser, Kathy Bates has a tiny role at the very end, Kathleen Quinlan is always dynamic as the bereaved mother seeking justice for the death of her son, Sydney Pollack has a role as Jan's opponent. Jan is Travolta's character who is a Cornell educated attorney who seeks justice rather than reap it's financial rewards. This film came after Erin Brockovich but I think this is the more effective film. The characters and the actors who bring them alive are realistic about a Boston suburb of Woburn who loses 8 children after toxic dumping and hazardous wastes in the local river failed to implicate the true nature of it's affects and actions. You can't help but root for Jan who loses everything financially like his home, his business, and is in credited to debtors and the repose man like anybody else. He does it for justice and not much more.
A Terrific Drama
posted on 15 Mar 2009John Travolta, Robert Duvall, Tony Shalhoub, William H. Macy and John Lithgow are only half of the great actors that make up this amazing cast. Even the supporting cast, from the minor roles to the background actors, each character adds to the brilliance of this movie. A drama, not like most movies you see, A Civil Action is a drama where the drama builds not on the synopsis or the setting of the story, but the story itself. The plot of the "bad water" is far from dramatic. Then again, tossed in with the characters that are put on stage together, the drama begins to build. Along with the story, A Civil Action has moments outstanding direction. Certain emotions are built on the style of direction, example, the parked car on I-93, or the way a glass of water sits alone on a table. An outstanding movie, great from the very beginning.
Very enjoyable drama
posted on 22 Feb 2009I watched this movie last night, and enjoyed it very much. Travolta was very good, and Robert Duvall was simply outstanding. The interplay between the two of these guys is where the drama in the movie lies. Even though the underlying human drama of the residents of Woburn may have been the most important element of the real life story, here it is just a backdrop for the "war" between the lawyers.My favorite scenes are (i) the hotel meeting where Travolta makes his settlement demand while Duvall is admiring the fruit and the complimentary pen and quietly pocketing a bread roll, and (ii) the exchange between them outside the courtroom waiting for the initial jury verdict, when Duvall offers $20M.One scene I didn't enjoy so much (only from the point of view of really wanting Travolta's character to succeed) was where Travolta meets with company boss Al Eustis, played by Sydney Pollack. Eustis really plays with him, making him put his feet up on the furniture. The fact that he went along with that showed how intimidated he was by this stage, in constrast to his earlier bravado.I thought the ending of the movie was a little soft. I know this is based on a true story, so we shouldn't expect a wildly triumphal ending. And the initial settlement added to the drama, knowing that there was still another 15 minutes or so of viewing left. However, what disappointed me a little was that we never got to find out how the EPA picked up the case after Travolta had to pass it up. It raises the question of why they weren't involved in the first place. There may well be good reasons, but after all of the tension in Travolta's firm trying to survive the case on their own, to me this was a bit of an anti-climax.
Film doesn't do justice to compelling story
posted on 26 Jan 2009There's no way a film of under two hours could do justice to this compelling story (well told in Harr's excellent book), and unfortunately, that's what we get. I'm surprised Zaillian, who did such a good job writing SCHINDLER'S LIST and writing and directing SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER, would stumble like this. The movie becomes more about the process of the case and less about the case itself, and the film used too many shortcuts, like how Travolta's character ultimately decides to take the case. And even though the movie focuses on the trial, we don't get a sense of how Travolta and his team really lost the case themselves.What it did show did have its good points. Duvall is good as usual, and it's nice that he and the filmmakers didn't turn him into the stereotypical evil lawyer. This is a part ready-made for Travolta, and he does it well, capturing both the initial arrogance (like during his radio broadcast at the beginning) and his being transformed by the case. But again, we don't get enough of the families and their story.
2 hours that feel like 4.
posted on 14 Jan 2009*** Spoiler Alert ***I saw this movie when it came out, thought it looked great. Then I saw it. Must have been a hundred still shots of a glass of water. Yeah, after the first couple, I got the point.Then the end. Sitting in the theater, and reading the messages on the screen that describe what happens later, without resolving ANYTHING, I just said "WHAT?!?!" and "I can't believe I just wasted 2 hours and $15 on this." out loud in the theater. I wasn't alone.If you want to see something like this, only much better. See Erin Brockovich.
Even John Travolta can save this film
posted on 02 Jan 2009I was going to see this movie hoping to see a well acted courtroom thriller that kept the me guessing to the end. I was disappointed to say the least. Instead, I saw a sub par movie which mostly talked about how John Travolta and his defense team would finance the case. I would like to have seen more of the courtroom battles between John Travolta and Robert Duvall and be focused more on the actual case rather than financing the case.Frankly, the only decent performances came from William H. Macy, Tony Shalhoub, and Kathleen Quinlan. Robert Duvall's performance is nothing to speak of because he didn't make a significant enough impact in my mind. Any actor could have done what Robert Duvall did. I rate this movie a 3....... out of 10.
Good, but not great
posted on 24 Dec 2008As far as courtroom dramas go, this is by no means great. I've seen plenty of them, as American law system interests me. The greatest would arguably be A Few Good Men... this is pretty much in the order end of the spectrum, being a fairly slight courtroom drama. It has just enough good points to it to keep it above average, but only *just* enough. I think the way the story was told was fairly standard, but good anyway. I liked Travolta's voice-overs, and liked the fact that it's not the typical cliché-like ending, where, against all odds, the case is won. I won't tell you exactly how it ends, but the ending is pretty good, and not as predictable as many of the courtroom dramas are. The plot is good, and develops, at least in the beginning, pretty good, and with a good pace. However, somewhere in the last half, the pace drops and you find yourself being bored with the film. Too bad, since it started out so promising. The acting is very good; Duvall and Travolta are obviously good, but Macy and Lithgow were surprisingly good(not that they're typically bad, though). The supporting cast also do their jobs well. The characters are well-written, credible, and well-casted. The humor, though rare in the film, is mostly good. All in all, a pretty good courtroom drama, based on a true story, and a basic story of inexperienced against experienced, as they say in the featurette on the DVD. I recommend it to fans of courtroom dramas, and fans of any of the actors. 7/10
A relatively powerful movie
posted on 24 Dec 2008A Civil Action: Water. It's a basic fact we need it to survive. The human body can go longer without food than it can water. But what do you do when the water you need to survive may be killing your children? A small town in the North Eastern part of the United States faced this very problem in the 1970s. John Travolta plays Lawyer Jan Schlictmann in this movie based off a true story. Jan is the hottest young lawyer in Boston. He is a personal claims lawyer (some would call him an ambulance chaser of the highest degree) with a thriving small practice. He is one of the 10 most eligible bachelors in Boston. Jan will do anything to win a case. He has his own personal equation as to which person will bring in the most money from a trial and thus fill his pockets the deepest. The client he desperately wants to avoid is a dead child as they are worth the least in a jury verdict. Everything is going well for Jan and then a case with at least 10 dead children drops into his lap. This case is known as an `orphan' as it has landed in every prominent lawyer's office and all have passed on it prior to him. Jan meets with the families to give them a personal `No thank you.' While there he finds of their suspicions as to chemicals that have been dumped into the ground and poisoned the water supply. What interests Jan the most is the parent companies behind the dumping. Suddenly a no interest case becomes one which could net him millions. The rest of the movie deals with Jan's obsessive involvement with this case. How it raises him to an almost unheard of prominence and dumps him into the lowest levels he has ever been. John Travolta does a good job in this role. He can play the ultimate of arrogance and also the most wounded of individuals as he grows to learn more about what life is truly about. William H. Macy is Jan's financial affairs person who is desperately trying to keep the firm afloat as Jan's obsession causes them to spend more and more. John Lithgow is fine as the Judge. Robert Duvall is great as the opposing lawyer who gives Jan a lesson in legal theatrics. The movie is well done but a little slow at times. Definitely would recommend it as the performances by all move this one. **3/4
Travolta Delivers
posted on 06 Nov 2008Forget the lame excuse for a film "The General's Daughter". "A Civil Action", co-written and directed by Steven Zaillian, sports one of John Travolta's finest performances since "Pulp Fiction".Travolta is Boston injury attorney Jan Schlichtmann who is one step away from ambulance chaser status. A case is passed on to his small law firm (a passed case like this is called "an orphan") regarding the deaths of some children in the northern Massachussets town of Woburn from lukemia. The parents strongly suspect the lukemia was brought on by the improper disposal of hazardous waste from two of the towns factories. They fear the drinking water is contaminated. At first Jan wants no part of the case. But he begins to feel in his heart that there is something more valuable than money. As the film progresses, we watch his emotional transformation from greed to empathy. (If this character sounds vaguely familiar, it's because Steven Zaillian also wrote the screenplay for "Schindler's List". And, like Oskar Schindler, it isn't what is said, it is what is done.)The film is well paced and every scene is necessary for the development of the characters and plot. While watching "A Civil Action", it struck me that this was more a character driven film than a story driven film. That's not to say the story isn't important. I mean, how exciting is any civil court action? In reality, most people fall asleep while listening to civil court arguments. Wisely, Steven Zaillian didn't keep us trapped in the court room listening to testimony regarding soil samples and chemical compositions.
Rather, he created realistic and well defined characters with a lead who has an emotional learning curve to negotiate. I was especially taken by Robert Duvall as slightly eccentric but sharp as a tack opposing lawyer Jerome Facher. Duvall seemed to eat up this role. However, my personal favorite scene was with excellent character actor Dan Hedaya as owner of the tanning factory and defendant John Riley giving part of his deposition to Jan Schlichtmann with a glass of water and Jan's expensive wood conference table. Riley oozes loathing for Schlichtmann. "A Civil Action" is a well directed, solid character film with very realistic dialogue, an excellent cast and an outstanding performance by John Travolta. The film also gives some general insight into the thought processes of personal injury attorneys. It is emotional and reminds us that there are some things more important than money.
An OK film.
posted on 13 Oct 2008This was a good film but it reminded me too much of "The Rainmaker," which I liked more. John Travolta was good as usual, but an obligatory role for him. A lot of the pacing was slow, but it had a lot of comic parts. I did like it, but not enough to match the hype going around it. It's a typical courtroom drama for me.
A film to savour for the performances
posted on 10 Oct 2008This is one of a number of legal dramas which appeared in the 1990s, which pitted the 'little guy' against multi-million dollar corporations. I've seen it many times, but every time it is on TV I try and watch it again, and I can tell you the reason in in two words: Robert Duvall.Actually that's not fair. It's a good film in itself. Well written, well directed and with a whole host of good performances, from reliable actors like John Travolta, William H Macy and John Lithgow among others.But Duvall is delicious. He plays an experienced trial lawyer, who is brilliant at his job defending companies against damage claims, but his brilliance is very un-obvious. In fact, he goes out of his way to appear very ordinary: the crumpled suit, the cheap briefcase, the homely baseball-loving ways and his affected offbeat mannerisms ("This is a good quality pen.") He is in fact the kind of character who would make anyone want to be a lawyer (and I hate lawyers as much as the next guy!) But I digress. There is more to 'A Civil Action' than this. You want to know if the film is worth watching - and it is. It is at heart a good story, with human interest, moral presence and a few unexpected twists. But above all, its a film to sit back and savour for the performances. One of them above all the others.
What the hell is going on in this movie?
posted on 10 Sep 2008Courtroom dramas are so out of date. Which is why this sub-genre is confined mostly to rubbishy TV-movies these days. In A Civil Action there was just too much legal jargon for me to understand. If find that most audiences feel a bit alienated by technical gobbledygook.The comedy wasn't really funny and seemed out of place. Most characters just seemed to be nameless. There were just too many to remember and they weren't really all that interesting to begin with. The film also had very little drama. It was quite a labor to get through this guff. I think it was never really intended to be more than a potboiler. Catch it on TV if you're that desperate. It's where it belongs.
Ecological Tmebombs in America!
posted on 11 Aug 2008I was with a very large environmental corporation for a very short time. They had discussed things like leaking barrels of toxic waste in large dump sites and large storage tanks leaking toxic waste into the groundwater there. I do not suffer from any chemical pollution exposure, but the danger that toxic waste poses to Americans is for real! They said something about toxic waste from Silicon Valley seeping into the groundwater there, too. Yet, I did get a real kick our of Robert Duvall playing that laid back corporate lawyer. Just because people don't talk real fast at times, don't mean their dumb! People seem to make that mistake with me. And the part of John Travolta beign left with his apartment and his radio sounds a little like how my life was ruined in graduate school in Chemistry in 1986! I had also been amused with the educated atheist lawyers being so desperate for money that sent $250 to a televangelist in hope for a financial miracle. In my study of the Bible on worldliness, I had noted from the Letter of Paul to the Corinthians how God defeats or frustrates the wisdom of our wise men. I guess this is why we have things like man made ecological disasters ane the threat of nuclear war! They did not have scientists or engineers at that time, so everyone was called a philosopher. But our modern wise men do ruin the planet!
A solid mediocre.
posted on 21 Jul 2008As Lawyer films go, this one was ok. It seemed inordinately slow, and the characters poorly motivated. It seemed to me unreasonable that the fellow lawyers at Jan's firm would sacrifice everything for a case they didn't believe in. Robert Duval pulls off the near impossible task of being likable as an antagonist.
Great story, great movie
posted on 21 Jul 2008A wonderful, beautiful book made into an equally good movie. Wonderful acting from Travolta, Macy, Duvall, Lithgow, Gandolfini, and the brilliant Kathleen Quinlan.Jan Schlichtmann is not a sensible, prudent, or very likable person. He is arrogant, reckless, greedy, ambitious, and brusque. Buried in there is a social conscience, however.This is a story about how a very flawed person--a real person--does the right thing. In doing so he ruins himself financially and takes a lot of people with him--his partners and friends. He does prevail. Do the injured parents thank him? No. Their grief is still so immense that they cannot be thankful even to these men who have really given them their all.The scene with James Gandolfini sitting at the table with his wife and eight children is one of my favorites in any movie. He is another person who suddenly realizes that, no matter what it costs him, he has to do what is right.Although the good guys win it is not an altogether happy story--there are the parents of dead kids and the ruined careers--but it is unforgettable and it is real. At the end, Schlichtmann says he would do it again if he had it to do over. This is what real heroes are like, in the real world. They do not always get thanks and a medal, but they do things for all of us anyway.
Travolta shines in well written fare
posted on 03 Jun 2008Starting the film as the traditional stereotypical lowlife lawyer, John Travolta is actually superb as his character develops into someone who actually cares about his clients, and about people other than himself.Robert Duvall is excellent as his opposing counsel, and his character's interplay in the courtroom drama with Travolta is worth seeing the film for alone. Duvall plays quirky characters like few else in modern cinema.Given the job of prosecuting a tannery over water pollution that has led to the death of many children, this is well written and structured - as well as being brilliantly acted and well directed.The one complaint I would have is that this petered out a little in the finish, which was perhaps inevitable as it's a true story, and sometimes the climax of real life isn't as good as in fiction.
Boring!!! This movie sucks!!!!
posted on 31 May 2008I was reading the comments about this movie and noticed that somebody (who is obviously on some serious drugs) commented that this movie was alot better than Erin Brockovich. WRONG. Erin Brockovich won an academy award for a reason and this movie won NOTHING because it doesnt deserve anything. Erin Brockovich was FUNNY and CREATIVE and had GREAT acting. This was one of the most boring, uneventful, lackluster movies I have ever seen in a theatre. I had a really hard time staying awake. So what if this was a lawsuit who cares the story of it was told very poorly. There is not one even remotely interesting scene in this movie. The script was dull and bland. Skip this one. 3/10.
Not all it was cracked up to be
posted on 29 May 2009This movie really left something to be desired. The trailer that was shown was very misleading and had people thinking it might be a good movie. There was no suspense which was really a disappointment. The movie basically just summed up the facts about the case that the movie was based on. Travolta gave a good performance in not such a good movie.