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. ****
Add a Review
-
thinker169115 March 2007
-
"Nuts" is one of those set-piece courtroom dramas that feel too slick, too pat, too contrived to really work, despite some excellent work by Richard Dreyfuss, Eli Wallach, and especially Maureen Stapleton. Even Barbra Streisand (definitely NOT one of my favorites) isn't too bad when she's not too busy chewing the scenery to pieces.
However, this movie drones out like a late-80s morality play, or even an acting-class extemporaneous psychodrama. It hits all the right PC notes: a stepfather who is a sexual predator, an alcoholic mother who (maybe) unwittingly pimps out her daughter for security, a physically abusive husband, not to mention the lawyer who wants to get rid of her quickly, the other lawyer who risks everything for justice, the uncaring hospital administrator/psychiatrist who ... well, I'm sure you're getting the picture. The most egregious is when the WASPy lawyer and psychiatrist get their panties in a bunch when she starts talking about sex and prostitution, as if they've never dealt with it before. All we're missing here is a learning disorder.
All of this is mere prologue for Streisand to strike a blow for feminists by declaring that her life choices are her responsibility (true) and that they want to label her as crazy and lock her up forever because she's dared to do things that men don't like, and they're afraid of her power (huh?). Maybe it's symbolism, but it's laid on very, very thick, and Streisand's tendency to overact doesn't help.
The result of all this contrivance is that the story feels false, the characters feel false, and a good deal of what goes on in the courtroom isn't at all realistic. James Whitmore as the judge gives the most realistic performance, but it's not the actors -- it's the script itself. People contradict themselves in ways inconsistent to their characters. For instance, Karl Malden as the stepfather makes a very incriminating contradiction on the witness stand. Would a man who had successfully hidden his abuse of his stepdaughter for 20-odd years suddenly crack under 5 minutes of unremarkable questioning? Not likely. Would a psychiatrist who had testified in "hundreds" of hearings admit any personal bias by accident as shown here? Not likely.
However, there are some good performances that definitely lend tension to the movie, and even though this has very obviously been adapted from a stage play, it avoids that flat, almost-video look that so many movies from the 80s tend to have. It's watchable but not remarkable -- I gave it a 6. -
Prismark1015 June 2014Nuts is an adaptation of a stage play. Aaron Levinsky (Richard Dreyfuss) a public defendant is forced to take on a defendant being tried for competency.
The District Attorney (Robert Webber) sees this as a simple case of mental incompetency. The accused in question is playful, spirited and hard to handle. Claudia Draper (Barbra Streisand) is the high class call girl who is determined to prove that she is not nuts. Her parents are bemused but as we see from flashbacks there is a terrible family secret and Levinsky will need to discredit (Eli Wallach) the psychiatrist who is convinced that Draper is nuts.
Its hard to escape the film's stage-bound origins as a lot of the film consists of interior shots. In some ways this a courtroom play. Dreyfuss is actually enjoying himself as defendant lawyer Levinsky trying to get a handle of his rich girl client and then seeing his face when he twigs what the real tragedy might be.
Streisand on the other hand never convinces me that she is a high class hooker who has been roughing it on the seamy side of life. Its not the film's fault that the murder victim turns out to be Leslie Nielsen (soon to be in the hit spoof Naked Gun films) as his scenes that we see in flashback go a little bit too near to Frank Drebin and I am sure no want wanted too see Nielsen in just his black underpants.
As a courtroom thriller in a busy New York court setting the film is enjoyable but dare I suggest that Miss Streisand was miscast. -
MAX8027 November 1999Based on Tom Topors's off broadway play, NUTS is a highly charged drama that raises some uneasy questions. NUTS opened in late 1987 to little hype and mixed reviews.
This is a film that deserves to have a second life on video. While the court room plot devices are predictable, the film raises some important issues and questions. Questions like, "What is normal?" and "Does the law have the right to force help upon those who don't want it?"
What really makes this film worth watching though, is Barbra Strisand's bravura performance in the lead. I cannot believe she failed to receive an Oscar for her work here, it's crime that she wasn't at least nominated. Director Martin Ritt keep the film going at a perfect pace and also gets strong supporting performances from Richard Dreyfss and Maureen Stapleton.
This is a film that deserves more attention then it originally received, it is honest, though-provoking, and features a brilliant performance from Streisand.
My score for this excellent film: 9/10! -
mls41822 September 2021Streisand is still good in this thankless role playing a necessarily annoying character. The real jewel in this film is Maureen Stapleton. As always she gives an award winning performance. The acting is good but the courtroom scenes stretch credibility.
-
Nuts, by Barbra Streisand, is a classic showcase of this multi-talented woman's versatility as an actress. The film deals with a very weighty subject, is handled superbly by Streisand, both as an actress and as a director. Other noteworthy performances are given by Richard Dreyfuss, Maureen Stapleton, and Arthur Kirk, as her lawyer, mother, and step-father respectively. This film is an unadultered gem and should be considered as such by any worthy critic.
-
Badly neglected by both audiences and critics at the time of it's original release, NUTS is a film that is ripe for reevaluation. Based on Tom Toplor's 1981 courtroom play, NUTS is definitely a dialogue-based film with little Hollywood flashiness. Though extremely well-written (by Toplor, adapting his own work with Darryl Ponicsan and Alvin Sargent) and sharply staged and directed by veteran Martin Ritt, it is the cast whom is really responsible bringing NUTS to life. Barbra Streisand gives an absolutely bravura performance that should have earned her an Oscar nomination. Alternately hilarious and frightening, Streisand is always mesmerizing as she delves so far into character.
Richard Dreyfess is nothing less than Streisand's equal as her public defender. He too was robbed of an Oscar nomination. The supporting cast is a top-notch ensemble of professional character actors (Maureen Stapleton, Eli Wallach, Robert Webber, James Whitmore, and Karl Malden), all of whom work their craft flawlessly. NUTS' screenplay does indulge in the predictability of some of the typical courtroom-plot conventions a little too often, but Toplor's absorbing script still deserves high praise for it's fascinating exploration of what constitutes as normality and whether or not the insane should be required to receive treatment. NUTS isn't going to win over any fans of 3-cuts-per-second action films, but it will leave lovers of thought-provoking, expertly-acted dramas fascinated. -
moonspinner5526 September 2006Manhattan call-girl has to prove her sanity in a courtroom hearing after she has killed a client; she says it was in self-defense, but now her mental state and her lifestyle--as well as her tumultuous childhood--are on trial. "Nuts" presents a dilemma for director Martin Ritt and his screenwriters, Tom Topor, Darryl Ponicsan and Alvin Sargent, working from Topor's play: how do you get an audience to sympathize with the heroine of your story, one who has a short fuse, a nasty disposition, and who rubs everybody else the wrong way? It probably wasn't possible, and protagonist Claudia Draper is an exasperating, meddling, infernal creation. Barbra Streisand obviously saw in the material a meaty dramatic role for herself as an actress and, although perhaps a bit too old for the part of Claudia Draper, she tackles the project with relish. Unfortunately, "Nuts" opens with such a flurry of manic energy that it's predictable the film won't be able to sustain or match that intensity for the rest of its length. Once the introductions are out of the way, the film settles into a talky, stagy formula, one complete with showboating solo moments for Streisand and most of her co-stars (with the exception of Richard Dreyfuss as her legal representative, who makes a bigger impact simply by keeping a lower profile). Streisand's abrasive Claudia is really the whole picture, and Barbra chews up so much scenery in the course of two hours I'd be surprised if she didn't hit the gym afterward. Still, a piece like this needs an electric personality in the lead if it's going to work at all, and Streisand does more for the role than a less-dynamic actress might have. Not a great picture by any means, and with an amusing/puzzling final shot of Streisand at the end, but one that is well-produced, interestingly edited and full of top talent and style. **1/2 from ****
-
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. -
jzappa13 July 2011Though it's largely set in a daunting courtroom, Nuts tries to be more psychological mystery than legal dilemma, and for the better part of the way throughout, Nuts is startlingly gripping before it shamelessly tumbles into agonizing, even cringe-worthy sermonizing at the lugubrious and pedantic conclusion when Streisand serves a painfully affected monologue all in close-up. It's the household psychodrama between patient and shrink, except here a lawyer does the evaluating. Dreyfuss plays this intersection between Perry Mason and Sigmund Freud, Aaron Levinsky, court-appointed to represent Claudia Draper, a call girl who killed a john. The exhaustingly hostile Claudia longs to be tried, but the court is about to pronounce her mentally incompetent to stand trial. The judge, played with truthful and temperate keenness by James Whitmore, certainly merits that available seat on the Supreme Court. Seasoned and resolute as he is, the judge questions how this smart, well-heeled girl came to this. Her mother and stepfather, Maureen Stapleton and Karl Malden, seem to be ideal parents, and Claudia the indulged child gone strangely nutty. Levinsky, the intellect detective, prods for resolutions for this catch-22 that's quickly wearing his patience thin when he needs it most: dealing with her.
In another first-rate performance, Richard Dreyfuss plays the stunningly durable Levinsky. With infectious charm, he unearths some bleak skeletons from her cupboard, and in turn from those of Claudia's stepfather, her mother and her psychiatrist. This credentially surefire film, for awhile, seems like a plucky movie with an unpleasant lead who intractably defies bowing to the agendas, neuroses, or desires of anybody else. But by the end of Nuts, when the case has been decided, there's an unshakable sentiment of tackiness, that the antagonists were trumped-up sitting ducks the script contrives to be taken lying down. If all of psychiatry had been this undemanding, Freud wouldn't have been needed to invent it. The Brothers Grimm would've already taken care it for us.
But regardless, the unraveling of those details is executed so well. At the helm of such masterpieces of delicate subtlety and sensitivity like The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, Pete 'n' Tillie and The Front, Martin Ritt is efficient with the technique of the flashback that expands step by step, showing but an instant of a past event, then a little more, then ultimately the entire event. Two distinct bathroom sequences are divulged in this manner, one surrounding Claudia as a little girl, the other her brutal confrontation with her victim. Nuts culminates like a Broadway musical, but otherwise it's an absorbing character study, cadenced like a fine thriller. Ritt has always undoubtedly been a performer's director with a predilection towards oppressed female protagonists. Sally Field's Norma Rae, Patricia Neal in Hud.
Supported by a dignified cast, Streisand and Dreyfuss pair for the first time, but they work together like practiced dancers. He spins her and she laps up the ovation. And that's not uncommon for the controlling Streisand, who characteristically holds the fort on all her projects, but whether it's Streisand or Stallone, supremacy on a movie set only achieves either profundity or chaos. Eli Wallach is entertaining arcane as the psychiatrist. Stapleton is deeply felt, if way too broad, as the feeble mother, with Malden fluently overtaking his Am Ex stamp as Claudia's stepfather. Leslie Nielsen is every prostitute's dread as the client who insists upon and gets more than has been agreed to.
In the opening scenes, we are submerged in the dark-light worlds of the robotizing single-file lines and pencil-pushing procedures of the womens' prison and the crowded, busy courtroom. Director of photography Andrzej Bartkowiak's camera-work begins us in a stark rhythm and atmosphere. But unfortunately, Nuts is below the summation of its memorable parts. Regardless of all its strong suits, it's ultimately ineffective and vain inside. No matter their cred, Ritt, Bartkowiak, screenwriter Alvin Sargent never entirely follow through with their ultimate intent, setting inner integrity against social facades to compel us to determine what it truly means to be crazy. -
aj9899 July 2015Barbra Streisand as a call girl (a "high end" one of course) who has gone more than a little nutty. Leslie Nielsen as a crazed John who attacks Streisand while wearing some very tiny black bikini briefs. Richard Dreyfuss as Streisand's hyper public defender. Dialogue such as "I get four-hundred dollars for a straight lay, three-hundred for a hand job, and five-hundred for head. If you want to wear my panties, that's another hundred" and "Don't judge my blow jobs, they were sane." All makes for a rather unintentionally campy movie and this camp factor is only ratcheted up by the serious way the film was made.
Streisand, admittedly, is entertaining in the role, even if the constant muttering to herself gets a little old after 30 minutes and becomes a little too theatrical in a look at me "I'm acting" kind of way. Nuts was based on a play originally produced in the 1970s and this film version, directed by the great Martin Ritt, is unable to overcome its original theatrical limitations. The film is unendingly claustrophobic, for example. There is only one scene that takes place outdoors - the final one. Moreover, the premise is awfully limited and despite Streisand's star power and the over the top concept of a nutty hooker killing one of her clients this film at its core is just a standard TV courtroom drama. -
RisiaSkye20 January 2002It's interesting, in looking through the "official" reviews of this film that such questionable illuminaries of film criticism as Roger Ebert seemed to miss the point: the desire to mark Claudia as insane seems to run strongly through reviewers, much as it does through the courtroom that the film portrays.
Streisand plays an abrasive, uncooperative, deeply rebellious person. Clearly, she's shown as intelligent. Clearly, she understands the rules of the game; she just doesn't want to play. I find it interesting that so many people seem to consider her insane, at the same time that Nicholson's McMurphy is a rebellious revolutionary hero, working against a repressive system. It's passe to suggest that sexism plays a role in how we view movies, but this one points it out on two levels: Claudia's trap, in the film, bears an uncanny resemblance to the trap the film's been placed in by reviewers: the fact that she isn't a nice housewife seems to suggest to many that she's unstable.
Sure, the movie (like the play) uses the facile psychological excuse of childhood molestation to explain her refusal to play the good-girl game. But maybe, just maybe, she refuses to play because she recognizes that she's not allowed to win. It's not for those who hate Streisand on principle, certainly. But, if you're willing to take a tough walk through the definition of sanity and the gendering of that idea, take a look at this film. -
gws-226 February 2002When "Nuts" was released, Barbra Streisand was 45. This might have been all right but for the fact that Streisand's character is supposed to be twenty-something and thus almost young enough to be Streisand's daughter. But then nobody has ever claimed that Streisand lacks chutzpah. Her character in "Nuts" is a prostitute who is thoroughly unlikable, even unsympathetic to all but the most ardent feminists. While the killing of one of her clients that leads to a manslaughter charge against her was clearly justifiable, I found myself not caring very much whether she was institutionalized or simply acquitted and allowed to go back to turning tricks and making the lives of all around her miserable. The movie's only saving graces are a taut script and terrific acting by the rest of the cast, particularly Richard Dreyfuss, Maureen Stapleton, and Malden, who despite his age, 75, could have passed for a man many years younger. Marginally recommended, but only if you can stomach Streisand and the character she plays; 6 of 10.
-
princebansal19828 July 2011This movie just serves as a star vehicle for Barbra Streisand. While it has a credible plot that kept me watching till the end, it is very contrived film. When the movie starts Barbra's lawyer is trying to prove to a judge that she is mentally ill, so that her parents are saved the embarrassment of a public trial, which will surely reveal that their daughter is a hooker.
She punches her lawyer who abandons the case and the judge appoints a new lawyer for her. But even though she is sane, she doesn't really acts like that. She is openly hostile to her lawyer who is trying to help and refuses to submit to an independent psychological examination that can help her case. When the hearing starts she constantly interrupts it. And somehow the judge never holds her in contempt but just keeps giving her warning after warning.
I do realize that she was a victim of child abuse and she is angry, but she is a big girl and is living as hooker for past 3 years. So I found the the whole affair very fake. -
PeachHamBeach21 June 2004POSSIBLE SPOILERS
A top notch cast: Barbara Streisand, Richard Dreyfuss, Eli Wallach, James Whitmore, Maureen Stapleton, and Karl Malden star in this excellent courtroom drama about a high priced prostitute who is declared mentally ill and unfit to stand trial for manslaughter.
Claudia Draper (Streisand) lives in a plush condo on 66th Ave. in NYC. She dresses in elegant apparel, wears minimal but lovely makeup, and meets nice looking businessmen in fancy restaurants. She's not your typical hooker. She doesn't have sleazy tattoos, she doesn't wear cheap miniskirts and KMart boots like Julia Roberts did in PRETTY WOMAN. She doesn't shoot up with heroin. She doesn't hang out on corners and drink malt liquor and try to wave down cars. You'd never know she was a hooker, because she doesn't fit the traditional description. Her MO is different. She had no pimps telling her what to do. She chooses who she will have sex with, preferring soft candlelight and sexy piano music and champagne to a smelly alley littered with needles or diesel trucks smelling of sweat and dead chickens. Believing herself to be of the highest quality among sex workers, she charges big money for her time, and that is how she lives, how she pays the rent and bills. She didn't run away from home at age 14 and fall prey to deviants, she divorced her husband and went into the age old profession by CHOICE.
For these very reasons, I have a bizzare facination with Claudia Draper. I admired her, for being who she wanted to be and not giving a damn what anyone thought about it. She doesn't seem to have a problem with it morally, and she's a grown woman anyway. And she's not had any serious problems with clients...until one night, when a client steps over the line and tries to treat Claudia like she's his wife, acting proprietary, then menacing.
Claudia ends up facing manslaughter charges, and because her profession is such a scandal and disgrace to her parents (Stapleton and Malden), she finds herself fighting with everyone about whether or not she is able to stand trial. She's a prostitute, so surely she's crazy. What sane, respectable woman would choose to do what she does for her living??? Her parents, who don't want her "destroyed" in an open trial, demand that she be locked up in a mental ward. They insist she's mentally sick, and her psychiatrist (Wallach) agrees and wants her deemed insane and hospitalized. Claudia passionately disagrees with everyone's opinion of her mental status, and would rather go to trial and even to prison. Her dignity and choice to not take an easy way out was another feature I admired. She admits she killed someone, and that it was in self defense. She didn't kill someone because she had been slowly breaking down because she was a call girl. Her lawyer Aaron Levenski (Dreyfuss) is the only one who seems to listen to her and hear what she has to say. Everyone else ignores her and talks to her as if they are talking to a dog who won't do tricks on command.
Family dysfuntion thrives in this woman's history, but as Claudia asserts, "It's not relevant to what's going on here." And she's right. She's had some bad things happen to her, but she doesn't want a pity party, she doesn't want to be tucked neatly away so that people don't have to look at her and accept her and realize that some people lead lives different from ours. Everyone is so busy hating her because she's a "whore" "call girl" "hooker" that they WANT her out of their sight so she won't BOTHER them anymore. Sometimes, the most benevolent looking people are the worst of all, and like many families, Claudia's hides its secrets. If they can deny it long enough, maybe it will go away. If they put Claudia away, maybe their own guilt will go away.
Stapleton had a line that made me think really hard: "A divorced woman is an easy target. She's vulnerable to any polite man who comes along." Hmmmm....
A very well executed psychological legal drama with good writing and great acting by all. A+++!!! -
NetPlay52518 June 2003A film with so much potential, ruined by a laughably miscast Barbara Streisand. This is one of a string of Streisand vanity projects that would have been better suited in other hands.
Maureen Stapleton, however, gives a bravura performance, making this film worth a watch.
La Streisand could learn a lot from the incredible Stapleton. Lesson #1: less is more. -
vampyrecowboy21 August 2009Yes, the multi-talented Richard Dreyfuss makes a great lawyer.
There's something about him that just kicks everything he does into high gear - even if it's a crappy movie in general.
He's gone that sparkle that not many others have.
He's got more sparkle than Al Pacino and De Niro.
If I were to go on trial for a serious crime, I would want Richard Dreyfuss backing me up...
The movie was OK, I don't think she was nuts from the very opening scene, not any of the rest of the movie made me think she was nuts - so why would anybody else think she was nuts? I guess because it needed a title and every other court room title was taken.
Anyways, it's a decent movie - nothing too exuberant and nothing award winning, but the roles for most actors were pretty darn good and because of Richard's screen charisma, it get's a 7. -
claudio_carvalho23 December 2015In New York, the public defender Aaron Levinsky (Richard Dreyfuss) witnesses the high-class call girl Claudia Draper (Barbra Streisand) beating her attorney while waiting for his hearing in the courtroom. Judge Stanley Murdoch (James Whitmore) assigns him to defend Claudia and soon he learns that she killed her client Allen Green (Leslie Nielsen) in self-defense. However, her mother Rose Kirk (Maureen Stapleton) and her wealthy stepfather Arthur Kirk (Karl Malden) want her declared mentally incompetent to go on trial. Dr. Herbert A. Morrison (Eli Wallach) prepares a medical report stating that she is mentally unstable to support the trial, but Claudia wants to prove that she is sane; otherwise she would spend the rest of her life in a mental institution. Along the hearing, the District Attorney Francis MacMillan (Robert Webber) and Levinsky question the defendant, her mother, her stepfather and Dr. Morring and the painful truth about Claudia's childhood is disclosed.
"Nuts" is one of the best courtroom dramas ever made. The story is developed practically in one location, but the performances are awesome highlighting Barbra Streisand. This actress deserved at least a nomination to the Oscar. The conclusion has a corny moment, when Claudia hugs her mother. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Querem me Enlouquecer" ("They Want to Drive me Crazy")
Note: On 12 Nov 2018 I saw this film again. -
Barbra Streisand plays a high-priced call girl, who is arrested for manslaughter. The crux of the plot is that her parents hire an expensive attorney to avoid a trial (and the accompanying public exposure of her profession) by having her declared mentally unfit to stand trial. Streisand's character doesn't help herself much by behaving oddly, and occasionally violently. The film is chock full of recognizable actors, who all turn in good performances. I'm not always a fan of Richard Dreyfuss, but he does shine in this one. Also, Leslie Nielsen, who was beginning his transformation into a comedic actor around this time, was very creepy and menacing as the "victim" of the homicide. It was, to me, reminiscent of his role in Creepshow. Overall, the film is pretty good, with good acting, good photography, and unobtrusive direction.
-
ocbka27 March 2000This movie is very psychological and emotional. The realism of Claudia's abuse as a child and its effects on her life as an adult is very heart-wrenching. It made me so furious to see Claudia's helplessness in a fight against the judicial system and her wealthy parents. It is depressing to see just how far the power of money can take us as a society - free killers and lock up (in this case institutionalise) the innocent. It is even more terrifying to know what kind of "licensed professionals" get to judge people's "mental capacity." This movie shows that there is still some hope and justice in the world.
-
SethTipt5 February 1999This could have been a great film were it not for Streisand's performance. It is strongly overdone and melodramatic (even hammy). She acted as though she were on stage, and that is ok if she is. But, on screen you have to tone down your performance. Otherwise, a good film.
-
rmax3048235 December 2015In this movie, Barbra Streisand is victimized by everyone -- her parents, the justice system, the johns she entertains -- and therefore the movie qualifies for entry into the genre of fantasy.
Streisand, a hooker, has a court hearing before a judge, the always admirable James Whitmore, to decide if she's too crazy to stand trial for manslaughter one, after killing a client who was apparently about to kill her.
It's her intent to be judged sane enough to stand trial and what she wants, she gets. She's defended by Richard Dreyfus and prosecuted by Robert Webber. Her parents, Maureen Stapleton and Karl Malden, attend the two-day hearing.
Streisand's character was raised in a rather well-off middle-class family, but her life has been chaotic, misbehavior in high school, the collapse of a ten-year marriage, smoking (gulp) marijuana, and finally becoming a high-end prostitute. Streisand interrupts the highly ritualized hearing by banging on glass tumblers, shouting, and otherwise disrupting the tranquility of the court.
Leslie Nielsen is the client who tries to kill her. She kills him instead, by stabbing him in the neck with a sharp shard of broken mirror, which is a common Hollywood convention, akin to knocking an opponent out by butting forehead, but it's still a violation of Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Anyway, there is obviously going to be a damned good reason for Streisand's unusual behavior. It's pretty generic. All the men in her life have been idiots, just as most of the men in this movie are. But the moment it was disclosed that Karl Malden was merely her stepfather, not her biological parent, we knew we were to be faced with the iron causality of childhood sexual abuse.
Streisand is a curiously attractive woman with considerable acting talent and a fine singing voice. But she has an ego the size of New Guinea. To her coworkers, she is as the nutcracker is to the walnut. So it's easy to see why she would find this role suitable. She gets to tell everybody off and insult them freely. The script makes it easy for her because, aside from Whitmore's judge and Dreyfus' defense attorney, everybody from the doctor on down is a liar and a moron.
The drama itself is a little sluggish but interesting in its details. Even sluggish courtroom dramas are interesting though, if they're at all well done, as this one is. Of course, Streisand's character could have obviated the mishigas if she had just taken the stand and told the truth right off the bat, but if she'd done that there would have been no movie. It would have been like Hamlet killing Claudius at the beginning, or the Indians shooting the horses instead of trying to pick off the stagecoach passengers. -
dwr24614 October 2005Like most issues in life, the question of sanity vs. insanity isn't nearly as cut and dried as it might seem on the surface. And Nuts is a film which definitely dives beneath the surface, and brings up some intriguing issues.
Nuts is based on the true story of Claudia Draper (Barbra Streisand), a high priced call girl who killed a john (Leslie Nielsen) in self defense. The facts leading up to the murder are told in flashbacks that leave little question as to the nature of the killing. It's the aftermath that is both surprising and disconcerting. Claudia's mother (Maureen Stapleton) and step father (Karl Malden), wishing to cover up any embarrassment over the crime, decide to have Claudia declared criminally insane. While Claudia doesn't wish to have this happen, her general paranoia and lack of cooperation don't help her case much. When she breaks her attorney's nose for not doing what she wishes, she is indeed institutionalized, pending further evaluation and another hearing. Her court appointed attorney, Aaron Levinsky (Richard Dreyfuss), also finds her less than cooperative, but ultimately comes to agree that she shouldn't be declared insane. However, with Claudia as a client, Levinsky has his work cut out for him as they try to convince Judge Stanley Murdoch (James Whitmore) that Claudia shouldn't be institutionalized for the rest of her life.
This is a fascinating story, told with a great deal of skill. While Claudia does seem insane at first - violently so - as the film delves into her background and the events leading up to the murder, the audience discovers a very intelligent, very disillusioned woman. Her disillusionment has turned her both cynical and abrasive. She trusts no one because those she has trusted have repeatedly let her down, or even abused her. Nonetheless, in order for Claudia to win her freedom, she must learn to trust both Levinsky and Murdoch. Her growth as she begins to do so is most satisfying to watch.
Streisand turns in another excellent performance, showing both her skill and her range as an actress. Her portrayal of Claudia shows the many facets of the character with astonishing skill. Dreyfuss also turns in his usual skilled performance as a lawyer who becomes more passionate about the case the longer he is involved with it. His eventual concern for Claudia is touching. Stapleton does a nice job of showing a woman who blinds herself to what she doesn't want to see, only to be forced to face it, and realize the damage she has done. Her regret is skillfully portrayed. Malden gives off a smarmy arrogance that is perfectly appropriate to his character, only to reveal a pitiful sort of vulnerability when the mask is stripped away. Whitmore does a wonderful job maintaining control in a situation that frequently threatens to get out of control. And Elizabeth Hoffman's cameo is amusing and skillfully done.
This is a disturbing film, and not one that is for the faint of heart - or even not a Streisand fan. Strangely, there was also a great deal of criticism for the fact that Claudia is not a "nice" character. But the point the film makes is that Claudia's only reward for being "nice" was to be mistreated. It's small wonder that she's not "nice." Still, this movie is a skillful portrayal of her story, and she does become a sympathetic character by the end of the movie.
Overall, a thought provoking film, and one that gets better with repeated viewings. -
Real_Review10 May 2019This film was meant to be an overly-sentimental indictment of the New York City judicial system (and, society in general). The music is cheesy, the pacing is wrong, and it was obviously written by a middle-aged man (really, Tom? It took and hour of film for anyone to suspect the step father of inappropriate conduct? Really?) The directing wasn't very good either. I don't agree with film making philosophy of depicting rape and violence against women, but drawing the line at nudity - we need more blatant nudity and implied violence, less blatant violence and implied nudity. With all of that said, this film should have been garbage. RIchard Dreyfuss & Barbara Streisand overcome these handicaps to shine, and create a memorable film.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1 Casting - 1/1 Directing - 0.5/1 Story - 1/1 Writing/Screenplay - 0.5/1
Total Base Score = 4.0
Modifiers (+ or -) Standout Performances: 1 ( Richard Dreyfuss ) Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 1 ( Richard Dreyfuss & Barbara Streisand )
Total RealReview Rating: 6 -
susi-230 October 1998A good- no- great performance by Barbra Streisand. It is a Drama which touches on real life issues and offers a different approach to the mentally insane legal proceedings. If you like to analyze people and ideas...you should watch this movie. It's excellent.