Yesterday I was traveling and heard an interview with a gentleman regarding this case on one of the FM NPR stations. I did not know any of the details so it took me a few minutes of searching (until I arrived at IMDb.) Anyway, it was an excellent interview and the interview story focused on the legal issues rather than the sensational crime. Which is unusual in this day and time. Bingo this morning, I was surfing on TV and this movie was just starting. Excellent timing, just as so many are afraid to assert or actually learn our 1st Amendment rights, or the interpretation of those rights by the courts. Just odd that's all. It is an excellent movie and still relative although it is 11 years old! What with current events perhaps there should be a remake of this movie instead of "Footloose"
Add a Review
-
kackylacky22 February 2011
-
meowria_kat26 August 2005This movie is based on a true story. I just finished watching an episode of The New Detectives on the Discovery Channel about a triple homicide in Maryland. Near the end of the program, they showed a canceled check marked NSF made out to Palladin Press and then they showed the actual book, Hit Man, and it was the same book from this movie. The episode made brief mention of the court case and briefly showed the headline of the outcome of the case. I knew I'd recently seen a fictional program about this and I racked my brain until I came up with this movie. The movie coupled with The New Detectives episode give the complete story of a brutal and senseless occurrence.
-
blanche-29 February 2012Admittedly, "Deliberate Intent" is not the greatest film ever made, but a 5.4 rating seems a little harsh.
The true story concerns the lawsuit against Paladin Press for their handbook "Hit Man," which helped a man kill his family.
A first amendment attorney, Timothy Hutton, who normally would be on the side of the publisher, is approached by another attorney (Ron Rifkin) who wants to take on Paladin. Up to that time, no publisher had ever been successfully sued for content, as publishers depend on the first amendment to publish their material.
Granted, it can be a slippery slope, but this case was not only very interesting but thought-provoking, calling into issue the responsibility of the publisher. Is it enough to say, I just published the book, collect the money, and not care about the content? This seems like it was a TV movie and not particularly well put together. It would have made a great feature film and could have used some extra time to flesh out the story a little. Also, the Supreme Court scene was not well researched, so it was done incorrectly.
Worth seeing for the story and for Timothy Hutton, who gives an excellent performance. -
markt197628 July 2002After catching this flick on late night cable, I did not expect much at all. I was not mistaken. The film raises some interesting questions on free speech and the US first amendment as it follows the story of a lawyer suing a publisher, whose book is responsible for a triple murder. This is an interesting topic to look at in a film and makes you think about books, films and songs and how they can influence weak-minded individuals, and have done in the past. John Hinckley Jr. and "Taxi Driver" is one that springs to mind. However the actual delivering of this message suffers due to the plot. The director does not seem to be sure whether he wants to concentrate on the murders the court case or the main characters divorce and is the worse for it. It jumps around too much, has no character development and is decidedly flat. Good idea but could have been better.
-
Prismark1027 January 2016This film was inspired by a real life event. It is a workmanlike but solid courtroom thriller starring Timothy Hutton and Ron Rifkin.
In 1993 an intruder broke into a house shot and killed a woman, nurse and then disconnected the woman's handicapped son's breathing apparatus.
The prime suspect was out of work music producer and the divorced father Lawrence Horn (James McDaniel) who was accused of hiring a novice hit man to carry out the crime so he can gain money from his son's trust fund.
Timothy Hutton plays a free speech lawyer enticed by Rifkin to bring a case against the publisher of the book Hit Man, which was used as a blueprint by the hired gun to plan and carry out the crime. There was also the motive that the publisher Paladin press had the financial deep pockets to pay compensation.
This case makes an interesting debate on the US first amendment rights but since this film was made I felt real life events have overtaken it.
Since 9/11 people can be prosecuted and thrown into jail for downloading documents that can aid you prepare to carry out mass violent crimes. Since the publisher had to pulp existing copies of the books and in effect give up copyright of the book, even Hit Man is down-loadable online.
It kind of feels like a Pyrrhic victory and made the film out of date. -
t_rex73718 April 2007I in no way mean to suggest that 3 people being murdered for money is hilarious, but for anyone who knows a bit about the appellate process, the "dramatic" scene in the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit -- with the gallery shouting out and the two lawyers sparing on rebuttal -- was laughable. I know it made for a better scene -- in reality, attorneys are given a certain time period to speak and answer questions, and there is no confrontation between parties -- but a little authenticity would have been nice. For a "real" film appellate argument, I suggest watching the Supreme Court scene in "The People Versus Larry Flint" (plus the guy who play Scalia is a dead ringer!).
It was interesting, however, to see a case I read about in law school brought to life. The case actually has some pretty strong First Amendment ramifications, which I am delighted to see people on this site have discussed. So it was not all in vain! -
xawn18 November 2002The concept was good and initially this seemed to fit the typical court case film. But it was cut too short, and the family's decision at the end of the film left me with a very sour taste in my mouth. Didn't they get enough money! Wasn't this about more than money? So when u reach the end you'll notice that the story does not deserve to be on film because it is a pre-mature ejaculation!
-
jordondave-2808522 June 2023(2000) Deliberate Intent THRILLER
Straight-to-rental from a made for television, co-written and directed by Andy Wolk starring Timothy Hutton which is based on true incidents somewhere in Washington whereas a family gets pointing all fingers pointing to the ex husband who's motivation was only for money. The second story or prosecution was the book's publisher of "Hit man" which the killer used as a tool to execute a family! Strictly by the book and uninspiring which by watching it still feels altered to suit TV viewers. This event, although meant well is better read on line as well as other sources than it to be seen on TV. -
vicdru20 July 2000Deliberate Intent starring Timothy Hutton, is one of the best courtroom dramas I've seen in quite some time. The story is very well written and really makes you wonder how far the 1st Amendment can really go. The content of the film is also quite disturbing - one man will stop at nothing for money and another man will stop at nothing for justice. The acting is very good, the story very well written and the pace keeps the viewer glued to the screen till the final fade out.
-
ccwlvn23 October 2005i cannot find too much fault with this film.
the end may not be to one's liking because the "bottom line=the almighty dollar" factor may come into the way one views it.
so be it. they got pretty much what they were going after. i applaud them.
the anatomy of the film was well thought out. the way it was done was good as it refreshed the viewer's memory throughout.
the actors did an excellent job.
it is time publishers took some responsibility for the trash that is published by some. the first amendment needs to be tweaked now and then.
this film will not please everyone but i enjoyed it even though the subject was sad and beyond the scope of believing a man could orchestrate such a horrible crime for the love of money. -
Alex-37216 April 2004This is the tv movie about how one lawyer took the first amendment to court and won - well, sort of.
The case of Rice et al vs. Paladin Press is real enough. What they never tied up for me however, is the publication of "Hit Man", caused the murders in question.
Yes, there is a precise description on how to kill reasonably efficiently - but you can get that from numerous publications. Army manuals (which are sold on Amazon.com), martial arts books and movies, even war movies _could_ be used as an instruction on how to kill.
Paladin publishes many books with instructions on how to create booby traps, how to poach, change identities. The problem is that, unlike it was argued in the movie, these techniques can have legal applications as well. Poaching is an invaluable skill to a man trapped behind enemy lines, or just lost in the wilderness. If you're being chased enemy troops, building an efficient booby trap may safe your life. Similarly, just tinkering around to see if you can make one yourself is a perfectly legitimate activity, glossed over by the protagonists of this movie. And of course a minute description of the work of a hit man can be of invaluable help to writers. So the argument that "there is no legitimate application for this knowledge" doesn't fly.
The case that without "Hit Man", the killer James Perry (played by the great Clark Johnson) would not have taken the job is thin. Book may have made him slightly more effective as a killer, but it never stopped him from being caught. Also, what is glossed over, is that the dad is a hardworking, talented man, who is punished for his work ethic by being forced to pay $25,000 PER MONTH in child support. (Hints of OJ, anyone?). Now I'm not saying they had it coming, but with a universal health insurance system, they would probably still be alive. Ex-husbands won't sympathize, especially not with the crabby sister. The man's paying the bills, the least she can do is show some respect!!
I'm not justifying murder, but if as an independent person, you ask yourself, could anyone have done something to avert this course of events, then there is plenty of blame to go around.
Anyway, in the end, the "positive" note the movie ends on is the supreme court granting the family's lawyers the right to go to trial. Of course, they never get there and if they did, it is highly doubtful that they would have won. The family instead settled and took the money. Again.