Movies-TV

days of our knives

Some reviewers have called "Jagged Edge" a manipulative movie, but I didn't find it to be such at all. Granted, the plot seems to be something that we've often seen, but the director and stars know how to keep it from getting silly. When Jack Forrester (Jeff Bridges) is charged with murdering his wife, attorney Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close) defends him in court. In the process, she starts to get attracted to him. But as the story moves forward, questions start to arise: how much do we really know about any of these characters? Can an attorney get manipulated by her own client? Whom can one trust in uncertain situations? Sound hackneyed? Maybe it is a little, but the movie keeps you guessing every step of the way. Both Bridges and Close show why they're among the greatest stars of their generation. I can pretty much guarantee that you won't find this movie boring. It's hard to believe that this was directed by the same guy who did "Return of the Jedi".

Tense, entertaining and very well acted!

A very entertaining and much-copied courtroom thriller, classily directed by the man who made Return of the Jedi a couple of years before, and given added punch by a fine, quotable script which is guaranteed to keep you in suspense right until the end. Jeff Bridges gives another great performance as the prime suspect in a murder investigation, the victim being his rich wife. All evidence points to Bridges, but his lawyer (Glenn Close, very good) is not so sure, and her initial reluctance of re-entering the world of criminal defence turns out to be a justified fear as she finds herself falling for her client and becoming unsure of whether he is genuinely guilty or not. Despite being imitated a million times since, this remains a snappily made, very well acted (there's also fine support from Peter Coyote as the case prosecutor and Robert Loggia as a foul-mouthed investigator) and often tense film.

I screamed out loud

I just knew he was going to come thru that back door. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. But I still screamed when he finally did. Jagged Edge is a twisted tale of a lawyer (Glenn Close) who defends a publisher accused of murder - and in the process she ends up falling in love with him. Played by Jeff Bridges, the publisher is, shall we say, duplicitous and perhaps not entirely to be trusted - or believed. It's when Close begins to doubt her own defense tactics that things get scary. I won't say more, because if you haven't seen Jagged Edge yet, I wouldn't want to spoil it.
But trust me: you'll scream.

"Foolish Pleasure"

Glenn Close plays a brilliant lawyer who screws up - twice - once as a prosecutor and once as a defense attorney - by being too good at what she does.


She has a struggle with her conscience before taking the case presented to her, since she has decided trial law doesn't agree with her, but is persuaded by what she perceives as the facts of the case. She consults an old friend, who has also a been detective before he retreated too far into his cups; she has worked with him before and trusts his instincts. Nonetheless, after bouncing the details off him, she decides to trust her own this time and go with it anyway. Besides, Jeff Bridges is devastatingly good looking and has a stable full of horses to boot - so even though combining business with pleasure is rarely a good idea, she decides to go for it.

It was a good enough movie but I felt neither of them lived up to what I had seen them do before in their roles. But hey, the scripts for "Fatal Attraction" don't come along every day.

Despicable violence, staged for the sensational...

With such a quality production and top-rank stars, you would think director Richard Marquand's "Jagged Edge" could overcome the sleazy elements in Joe Eszterhas' script and deliver us a tough, straightforward thriller. Alas, this murder mystery is queasy and uncomfortable, with nasty plot elements that don't quite match up with the film's glossy, old-fashioned veneer (it's rather like watching an old Humphrey Bogart crime-drama mixed in with exploits courtesy of the Manson gang). Lawyer Glenn Close defends Jeff Bridges on charges he murdered his wealthy wife, while her assistant Robert Loggia does her leg-work with an amusingly salty tongue. Close is an intrinsically smart and intuitive actress who just ends up looking like a dummy here, open-mouthed and vacuous, while Bridges steps into the gutter with a performance that isn't courageous or versatile as much as it is confounding (hopefully he was well-paid). A big hit in 1985, though the picture's zonked pacing is thudding, its hazy logic at half-mast, and its trashy climax pure tosh. *1/2 from ****

Please,someone tell me why this movie is so well liked

Even when it came out in the 80's I found myself amazed that so many people loved this movie. If you love it then I'm about to make you mad and I'm sorry.
The plot is very thin(you can see where it's going in the first 10 mins) and so the "thrill" is lost and as for the acting, Peter Coyote and Oscar nominee Robert Loggia steal this movie when they are on screen. Jeff Bridges is always good but has little to do as the accused killer and must sit quietly in court and that leaves Glenn Close to carry the film and while she is a great actress this is far from her best work.
The film making is very sloppy here also as continuity is thrown out the door. Characters pop in and out of the movie with no explanation just to serve the plot and in some scenes Glenn Close's outfit changes walking from the jury box to the Bench. There are even a few times that you can see the boom mike in the shot. Now that is bad for an A-list project like this.
Now if you like it, then you like it and that's OK because I like some stinkers myself, but this one was a real let down to me. The supporting players rate the 2 stars.

Good.

I saw this movie on a Saturday night with a bunch of friends when it came out (20 years ago, oh how time flies! I remember that one of my friends had a very hot girlfriend and she was giving me the eye big-time).Although I'm a bit hazy on some of the details, I do remember the plot, and most of the key events, and many, many scenes. (This forum helped me recall much.) What I do remember was that this movie really moved. None of that tush-shifting that boring movies evoke. In fact, this movie was the cinematic equivalent of a good page-turner. Taut, tense, tight.I also remember that the acting, direction, production all seemed very slick, professional and self-assured. Personally, I found the two leads great, and Jeff Bridges especially mesmerizing.Finally, without spoiling, there was one scene which had, it seemed, literally everybody in the packed movie theater we were in literally jump up six inches and scream. I do not ever remember a scene impacting a collective theater audience so intensely.So all in all, I thought of this as a very solid, entertaining movie. The first time I was aware of negative reaction to it was in Leonard Maltin's movie guide. He says, paraphrasing, "How can such a 'smart' movie have so many dumb plot holes?" I remember being very surprised. But I see on this website that many people are saying pretty much the same thing. All I can say is that I don't remember having that reaction myself at all.So it looks like this is one of those movies where you'll probably fall into one of two camps: a. Great, solid movie. b. Boilerplate courtroom drama with dumb plot holes. I wish I could help you out in advance by telling you which group you'll fall into! Maybe I could give you a Rorschach.Postscript. After we all left the cinema, my friend's hot girlfriend was saying: "Okay, so who did it?" and we were all trying to explain it to her, but she wasn't convinced! I think my friend ended up marrying her. After I shtupped her a few times (nah, just kidding).

Typical Courtroom Marry-Go-Round.

Jeff Bridges is framed for murder and it is up to lawyer Glenn Close to clear his name in this dull courtroom drama that tries to substantiate its sorry screenplay with typical twists and turns in the film's final act that most could have predicted anyway. Robert Loggia received a very curious Oscar nomination as a private investigator who helps Close out. Far from being a total success. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Tense...

Glenn Close and Jeff Bridges are two very good actors. Together, they help balance this movie out and make it a very good one. Bridges plays the husband of a murdered woman who is accused of killing her for financial gain. The neat twists and bends lead up to a surprising climactic conclusion. This movie also stars Robert Loggia, and I think he is a neat actor, who knows how to play his characters effectively. A good movie, with great suspense.

Should have been a Lifetime TV movie

Other than the performances of Glenn Close & Jeff Bridges, this movie has the intelligence level of a Lifetime TV Movie...maybe even less. Then again, what can you expect from Joe Eszterhas, the writer of "Flashdance," "Basic Instinct," and most dubiously "Showgirls." The story is about Jack Forrester (Bridges), a good looking and charming man accused of killing his wife, heiress Paige Forrester. Attorney Teddy Barnes (Close) comes out of retirement from criminal cases to defend him; the prosecutor for the case is Thomas Krasny (Peter Coyote), who is the reason Teddy left criminal law for corporate law. Plenty of bad blood between the two. Naturally (?!?), legal eagle Teddy falls for Jack and crosses the professional line, even though her sidekick, the phlegmy foul mouthed Sam Ransom (Robert Loggia) believes Jack is really guilty. I really found very little suspense and few shocking plot twists...in fact much of the plot is extremely contrived. The ending is almost laughable; without giving away the plot, let's just say it is hard to believe that one of the main characters could be so brilliant and so stupid at the same time. Close's monologue in court at the end is also hard to sit through; it is so out of character for this sharp attorney to drone on unprofessionally about a colleague to the media. Too many "bows" are tied together at the end for this movie to really be plausible. The saddest part is that with some good editing and a better writer, this film could have been fantastic, considering the talented cast.

The picture is decent with good color, but definitely not a super-sharp transfer. This film truly has an 80's look and feel, and the soundtrack is pretty flat as well. Other than a trailer/bonus trailers, production notes, and talent files, no real extras to speak of. Probably not worth purchasing.

I recommend this movie especially for "legal beagles."

A gripping story of a man "Jack Forester," Jeff Bridges (The Mirror has Two Faces) accused of murdering his wife. I had the privilege of watching this movie as an assignment for a class. When I mentioned privilege, I really meant it. Those days when I was in Law School it was a real treat! Our Professor/Judge gave us that as a class assignment for Professional Responsibility/Legal Ethics. I can tell you something! Between watching this movie and reading a one hundred and fifty page assignment for a class, I take this movie anytime! It sticks with you, like the plague, to see in what troubles an attorney can get into by getting involved, especially "emotionally involved, " with a client. Well the fact that I had free time due to the lack of mandatory reading for a class in itself, made me biased in favor of the movie. The Professor had the class spot the ethical rules that were broken in the movie: such as never get involved with a client. Well "Teddy Barnes," Glenn Close( The Natural) did just that. I am not going to teach the legal issues in this movie to you. But I respectfully disagree with Leonard Maltin. I think that the characters are very believable, specially if you are in law school and you are hanging in there by a thin tread of fear thinking what I am going to do if I have to defend a man like that? This movie was reality to me. It sure was!
Just image one of the members of the defense team falling in love with O.G. Simpson. That is where this movie goes. It can be watched in multi-level fashion. I watched it about twelve years ago and watched again on television last week. It scared me to death both times.
It is a very powerful movie! Actually the story without the romance has a similar fact pattern to the Simpson case. Coming to think of it, it is like: life imitating art! I recommend it, especially for the "legal beagles."

He is innocen

This is a typically eighties movie,with all the clichés around: the brilliant lawyer -of course she is a divorcée-,the handsome guy who may or may not be a cynical killer ...and of course a long trial.The screenplay is full of holes:witnesses for the prosecution or for the defense appear and disappear much to the two lawyers 'surprise ;and of course the discovery of the final clue by Close almost as soon as she is in her lover's house .And ,for a brilliant lawyer -who is responsible for a miscarriage of justice all the same!- ,it's not very smart to sleep with your client just before his trial!And she does not seem to work very hard on her case ,except for the scene when her daughter asks for some help for her homework.It takes all the talent of the actors to sustain the interest till the end.And sustain,they do ,for both Glenn Close and James Bridges are excellent (so is Peter Coyotte who makes the best of an underwritten part).The screenwriters display a certain sense of humor: I particularly like the lines about the hero's horses and how Glenn Close reacted during the trial.Entertaining ,but not really memorable.

Lame script, full of holes

I gave this movie a 3 only because of how good Glenn Close and Jeff Bridges were. To the script, I give a 0. The whole movie rests on "did he kill his wife or didn't he?" The lawyers fuss over the knife and former lovers and their reputations or lack of, and never once does anyone EVER mention an alibi, or where he was that dark and stormy night. Another major plot hole is the fact that everyone -- jury, lawyers, judge, etc. -- is supposed to believe that his guilt will rest on whether he or she had lovers in their pasts. Um, I don't think guilt swivels on that one point!

Jagged editing, but some good chills.

This courtroom thriller was one of the films that spawned a huge wave of copycats through the mid '80's and early '90's. Now, of course, these types of stories are on TV nightly in the glut of crime/law based shows. However, in 1985, audiences could still be (and were) riveted to the big screen by stories like this. Bridges plays a newspaper editor whose wife is brutally murdered along with their maid (in an opening sequence that is not overly graphic, yet is very disturbing.) Before long, he is prime suspect in the killings and is defended by a tentative, reluctant Close who is trying to redeem herself after some earlier unethical legal behavior. She squares off with slimy former prosecuting partner Coyote (in a slick, effective performance) to clear Bridges. She then, foolishly, becomes intimate with Bridges. There is constant doubt in her mind, as well as in the audience's, as to whether or not Bridges did the deed or not. Because the story is a tease and exists to manipulate and captivate the audience, there are plot holes galore. However, the film works very well on a visceral level, providing twists and shocks along the way (including one startling break-in near the end which is jarring no matter how many times it is seen.) The film's greatest strength is the acting, notably Close. Unlike later Eszterhas scripts, in which no one is sympathetic, she is a heroine to root for, despite her flaws. She brings great conviction to her poorly conceived role. Bridges does well also as the perfectly moussed, tan dreamboat who might be a savage murderer. Loggia brings a welcome salty edge to the film with his foul-mouthed portrayal of Close's investigator friend. All cussing and cigarettes, he is a stock Eszterhas character, but is acted well. There are other fine smaller roles played by Dehner as a crusty judge, Young as a haughty rich-bitch and Austin (an underrated actress) as an attack victim.
Close has two annoying kids and a wimpy ex-husband to make her life that much more unbearable. Drawbacks to the film would be the illogic of the script and the bizarre editing of the courtroom scenes in which the clothing Bridges and (especially) Close wear inexplicably switch! Her hair is also consistently inconsistent throughout...(within scenes!)...flat one moment, curly the next, varying in height and swoop, etc.... The discordant music by Barry is very unsettling and his use of low piano keys doubtlessly inspired Jerry Goldsmith for "Basic Instinct". It's the same type of sound.
Folks expecting a watertight story will be disappointed. Those who just want to be entertained and spooked should love it.

Okay, I guess

"Jagged Edge" is a fairly engaging (if somewhat formulaic) suspense thriller/courtroom drama/murder mystery with reliable performances from Glenn Close and Jeff Bridges. The film looks good on the surface and it manages to entertain for its duration. The obligatory romance subplot could have been better left out, though, but it didn't bother me much.

Sometimes a husband IS the first to know.

Richard Marquand directs this emotional crime thriller. Your heart and mind get involved as a very wealthy socialite(Maria Mayenzet) is found slaughtered in her blood splattered bedroom and the word 'Bitch' written on the wall. Of course, the first suspect is her manipulative newspaper editing husband(Jeff Bridges). With his best charm, he insist his innocence. The current prosecutor(Peter Coyote)has locked horns with the editor before and wants a conviction badly. Returning to court room law, an undefeated attorney(Glenn Close)decides to defend the man set to inherit more of his wife's fortune. She didn't plan on falling in love with him. This is not an action movie, but a thinking movie. Bridges and Close are perfect. The supporting cast features: Robert Loggia, Lance Henriksen and Leigh Taylor-Young. One thing for sure; Mr. Mustard did not do it with a candlestick in the library.

Gayest Mystery Movie Ever

Terrible, terrible, terrible. The movie was way too predictable. There was hardly any mystery to begin with. Jeff Bridges did the worst acting in his career. It was just disgusting to watch. After his role in Starman he seriously fell to pieces. I'm not even trying to be funny. His acting role sucked a**. Glenn Close did okay as his lawyer. The only reason why I didn't turn away from the movie was because of Robert Loggia's fierce role. That was the most the cussing I've heard anyone do since Linda Blair. He deserved that nomination that year. At first I didn't why he got nominated but I guess that was the only good thing about Jagged Edge. Overall, the plot sucked and I mean really sucked. Plus it was dumbest ending in the history of movies. Come on Glenn, Jeff and the retard who made this s**t.

a comfortable favorite

I come back to this film quite a bit - it's a great way to pass a quiet afternoon or a sick day from work. Part of its appeal, I think, is the viewer's familiarity with the suspense/sourtroom drama genre. We know how these films go, and this one has all the elements: a handful of suspects, a conflicted defense attorney, a victim with a complicated past, and a likeable defendant on trial. The writing, acting and directing make these familiar materials into a particularly enjoyable film though, through their attention to detail and craft.

If you enjoy watching real pros work their changes on a familiar
convention, you'll enjoy this entertaining suspense flick.

Neat Courtroom/Romance Drama

The plot's probably familiar. Man seems falsely accused of killing his wife. Hires attractive woman as his defense counsel. They seem to fall in love. She discovers he's guilty. Justice is served.What separates this from a Lifetime Movie Network flick is that it's actually pretty well thought out and splendidly acted.Glenn Close is fine as the defense attorney. Watch her expression as the early victim from Santa Cruz describes her ordeal in the witness chair. She's a good actress. She has a nice figure too, although wardrobe seems to have cinched her waist so that her rump seems too pronounced. Jeff Bridges always brings something interesting to the party. Here he plays it relatively straight as the accused husband, relying on a relaxed sort of charm that is appropriate to the character. Pete Coyote as the villainous but clever prosecutor is surprisingly good. John Dehner is as reliable as a war horse as the judge. I can't think of a role that he hasn't invested with a certain dignity. Leigh Taylor-Young has only a single scene but she's devastating. It isn't simply that she has aged a bit and yet looks fine. The delivery of her lines is splendidly matched with her body language. The director is a big help with her scene but elsewhere seems to condescend to the audience. A woman testifies to being trapped by a masked stranger at her home, tied up, and having he breasts carved. It's a horrifying story. Being that, it can carry its own weight but the director has the witness sobbing from the beginning instead of showing the gradual rise in the trajectory of her emotions. And when Glenn Close, watching her, projects that exquisite empathy, the camera slowly dollies in closer so that we don't miss it. We wouldn't have missed it anyway, even without the director's hitting us over the head with it.There isn't much of a score and what there is of it is effectively programmatic, kind of like an updated version of Max Steiner's "Mickey Mouse" score for King Kong, in which the music imitates the events and situations we're watching on screen. (During the requisite silent wait for the jury to come back with a verdict we don't actually hear a clock ticking. Instead, the music imitates the ticking of a clock.) I wonder if this isn't the kind of movie that will be seen differently by different audiences. For men it might be a story about conflict in the courtroom with a romance thrown in. For women, on the other hand, it might more likely be seen as a story of the emotional relationship between Bridges and Close that is tested in a courtroom.I'm not at all sure that men would read it the way women would. Close's attraction to Bridges would seem -- not exactly inexplicable but rather taken for granted. Women might be able to tap into Bridges' appeal more effectively. They're better at reading these kinds of situations than men are. (I am speaking to you as your psychologist. That will be fifteen cents.) Look at Jeff Bridges from a woman's point of view. He has all the qualities it takes to attract an unattached young woman. He is -- in no particular order -- rich, powerful, handsome, casual and unpretentious, polite, athletic (plays racquetball, which replaced tennis as the game de jour of the aristos), sensitive (he weeps when he enters the room where his wife was killed), intelligent (she quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes and he identifies the source), doesn't smoke tobacco, and he's misunderstood by everyone else. Oh -- and he LOVES horses, which women also love. What more could you ask for in an alpha male -- pheromones? Well, he's probably got them too, with more flavors than Baskin-Robbins.After the verdict is in, the movie kind of collapses in upon itself. Close finds irrefutable evidence that Bridges is the murder and rushes home with it. She tells Bridges on the phone that she has it. Of course this puts her in immediate danger of being slaughtered by him. Then she calls her friend and investigator, the vulgar but empathic Robert Loggia, and hysterically tells him, "Sam! I need to talk to you! I need you right away!" He asks her what it is, but she abruptly falls silent. Loggia urges her to tell him what it is, but she smiles and replies, "It's nothing, Sam. I just wanted to thank you." It's a cheap, old way of getting the audience to squirm and urge her to TELL HIM for Bog's sake! Nobody can get through a scene like that and make it believable yet again.Still, nicely done. Well worth watching.

Formulaic courtroom drama/murder mystery fare with good acting/directing, but sloppy writing. Annoying "twist" at the end, too. And horrible child actors.

A pretty formulaic courtroom drama/murder mystery with some decent acting and good photography. The writing is unfortunately where the film sags. None of the characters have nearly enough depth, though they are (just barely) saved particularly well by the grace of the actors who portray them.The twist at the end was also far too predictable, but in one of those daytime soap opera sort of ways where you think to yourself "could that be what's going to happen? No, no...the writer wouldn't be that asinine." And then when it turns out the writer IS that asinine, you roll your eyes and change the channel. The movie basically throws everything in your face that you've been subjected to over the course of the film, but in such a heavy-handed "NO DUH" sort of way, that you can't help but wonder if the writer conceived the script while suffering a concussion.I personally think the writing would've been cleverer if the character who gets it at the end wasn't who Glenn's character pretty much thought it was going to be by that point. It would've made for a far better ending, and a far more plausible one at that.Oh yeah, and there's some pretty irritating child actors in this film.