User Reviews (58)

Add a Review

  • Bryan_Rathbun519 February 2018
    Marshall is a great movie that delivers on an old-fashioned courtroom drama. Great story with really good acting from the leads. Great cast overall. So far I have loved every role I have seen Chadwick Boseman play, he is a great actor and has this sort of swagger when acting. Sterling K Brown is great and one of the greatest actors in recent years. It was different but enjoyable seeing Josh Gad in a drama. I wish they would make more of these movies that follow Thurgood Marshall's journey. The only negative thing is that it felt a bit long.
  • I got to attend an early screening of Marshall tonight. I'm interested to see how critics react. I have a feeling many of them will object to the "paint-by-numbers" approach to the film. While we have not seen Thurgood Marshall represented much in film, it does feel like we've seen this movie more than once before. But that isn't really the point. I've eaten spaghetti and meatballs hundreds of times before. I still enjoy it each time, the same dish, so long as it is made well. And Marshall, while not reinventing any wheels, is made well. Chadwick Boseman leads a terrific cast that includes Josh Gad, Dan Stevens, James Cromwell, Kate Hudson and Sterling K. Brown. Everyone is there to give this very important true story some depth and weight. At the same time, the screenplay never gets too caught up in its own self-importance. While some very dark themes and tragic events are present, there is a sense of humor pervading much of the film. This makes the people and events portrayed in Marshall relatable, instead of feeling like we're watching a group of untouchable, stoic historical figures. Marshall isn't designed to inspire anger or guilt, instead it encourages us to examine examples of unity that have been used to overcome struggle. It has more in common with films like The Help or Hidden Figures, than more aggressive films like Detroit (though that film is very intense and impressive). I would say Marshall will play out just as well at home as it does in a theater, but there is something about seeing it with a crowd that in this case adds to the experience. The gasps of the audience when an atrocity is displayed, the clapping when a bigot loses his/her battle-it is a good film to enjoy with an audience. From a technical standpoint, the film does not go out of its way to impress. The cinematography, costume and production design, music, editing-all seems serviceable if not particularly memorable. In this case its the story and the figures it portrays that you'll remember. 7/10.
  • ferguson-612 October 2017
    Greetings again from the darkness. The question must be asked: is the movie worthy of the man? The man was the first attorney for the NAACP. He won 29 of the 32 cases he argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, including the ground-breaking 1954 Brown v. Board of Education (separate but equal public education). This man was a trailblazer for Civil Rights, and in 1967 became the first African- American Supreme Court Justice. This man was, of course, Thurgood Marshall … a man who unquestionably deserves not just a movie, but a really good and important one.

    Chadwick Boseman has taken on film versions of such icons as Jackie Robinson in 42 and James Brown in GET ON UP, so he likely jumped at the chance to play the revered figure, Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Boseman has true movie star screen presence, and supplies the young Mr. Marshall with a self-assured swagger that accompanies a brilliant legal mind – a mind that refused to be ignored during a time it was desperately needed. Lest he be labeled a superhero, the film does portray Marshall smoking and drinking, while also hinting at his carousing. The common flaws of a great man.

    It's 1941 and the young (33 years old) Marshall is the lone NAACP attorney, so he spends his time ping-ponging around the country fighting for fair trials for those African-Americans accused simply because they aren't white. He works only for "innocent" people and his efforts during this time were crucial to the Civil Rights movement gaining attention and legitimacy. Most of the film centers on a case in Connecticut (no, not the Jim Crow south) where a black man, Joseph Spell (Sterling K Brown), is accused of sexual assault of a "respectable" married white woman, Eleanor Strubing (Kate Hudson). If you are reminded of the great book and film TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, you must know that those literary and cinematic standards are such that few can ever hope to reach.

    What follows is not one of the more dramatic or tension-filled cinematic courtroom dramas. There is simply too much levity for the film to be classified as a historical heavyweight. That said, the man and his story are fascinating, and though director Reginald Hudlin chooses a deft touch rather than a sledge hammer, it's likely the wise choice if the goal is to entertain, while also educating the masses to Marshall's early career. Josh Gad co-stars as Marshall's co-counsel Sam Friedman, a specialist in legal technicalities within the insurance industry. Boseman and Gad have nice chemistry (at times it feels like a buddy movie), and as a Jew in those times, Friedman is himself stuck in limbo between staunch racism and acceptance by the white community.

    James Cromwell plays Judge Foster, yet another man caught between the old world he has lived in his entire life and the fast-changing society and legal system that permits him to silence Marshall, while also forcing (somewhat) fair treatment of the accused Spell. Dan Stevens (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST) is Loren Willis, the disgusted and disgusting prosecutor. This character is so cartoonish that the only thing missing is a neon necklace that flashes "racist" as he speaks. Sophia Bush has a brief, yet important scene and Sterling K Brown (as Mr. Spell) has the film's most heart-breaking moment as he sits on the stand and explains why he lied.

    Director Reginald Hudlin seems like an odd choice for the project. He has been working mostly in TV since back-to-back-to-back bombs BOOMERANG (Eddie Murphy), THE LADIES MAN (Tim Meadow) and SERVING SARA (Matthew Perry). Mr. Hudlin has experienced more success as a Producer, having been Oscar nominated for DJANGO UNCHAINED. Here he works with the father and son screenwriters Jacob Koskoff and Michael Koskoff. The elder Michael is a well respected criminal attorney and legal historian, and certainly understands the expectations that come with offering a public look at a near- mythical figure … especially one as revered as Thurgood Marshall.

    This isn't so much a movie about the icon as it is about a young man on the path to greatness and importance (he served on the Supreme Court from 1967-1991). The soundtrack is filled with jazz which complements the light-hearted approach, and further distances from any semblance of "heavy" or "historical". Director Hudlin adds a contemporary touch by having Trayvon Martin's parents (Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin) appear in a scene near the end. On the downside, multiple upshot camera angles are designed to make his lead character look larger than life. The truth is, Thurgood Marshall required no help in looming large. Hopefully this mainstream approach pays off and many are introduced to the legacy of a man who is more than worthy of this movie … and another.
  • This enjoyable and inspiring movie is a worthy contribution to the courtroom movie genre. It memorializes the great Thurgood Marshall (who later won Brown v. Bd. of Education and sat on the Supreme Court). The film brings to life a forgotten rape case in Connecticut that Marshall tried early in his career when he was the solo staff lawyer at the NAACP. The story focuses on the plight of a black man accused of raping a white woman and it highlights issues of racism in the courtroom and on the streets. The movie recalls the classic fllms "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which also involved a black on white rape case) and "Anatomy of a Murder" (which also involved sexual issues and in which--like many real trials--we're never sure just what actually happened and who is telling the truth). The writing is sharp and witty and the acting and direction are great. Particularly strong is the emerging partnership and friendship of Marshall and the local lawyer, Sam Friedman, who had never tried a criminal case and thought he would just sit next to Marshall during the trial and and do nothing. But the judge forces Friedman to conduct the trial with Marshall serving as his adviser--and he rises to the occasion.
  • Growing up one of the first influential black figures I learned about was Supreme Court Judge Thurgood Marshall. While my life didn't veer in the path he took, it was a chance for me as a young black male to see the dedication and time he took to his craft and where it could take you. Almost 2 decades have passed since then, and found myself surprised to see a film finally based on him and his capabilities. While the younger me was excited, I found myself wondering how this film would hold up side by side with other black period films like itself in recent history.

    Thurgood (Chadwick Boseman) is working in the NAACP when he is tapped for a court case of the accusation of a black male rumored to have raped a woman and thrown her off into the river and left for dead. While he travels to Connecticut for the trial, he finds himself hard pressed given he is a out of town lawyer unfamiliar to the client, and is left to have a inexperienced attorney (Josh Gad) to speak on his behalf in court. While Thurgood knows most of the material and how to move in court, he has to show Josh's character the way to observe things his way.

    The performances are all relatively solid by no surprise given the cast. Josh Gad is able to sell the inexperienced character almost having to be hand held through every decision made in the courtroom. Also the development of him progressively becoming more confident as time goes forward. The writing in the courtroom is interesting enough to keep you invested in knowing what's the truth and the holes in one plaintiff and defendants stories.

    Alas, my biggest issue with the film is really the lasting impact. While it is perfectly watchable in the moment, I felt as if a story like this should have had more lasting impact than what I saw given it's a film in a movie theater. It's not as riddled with clichés like preceding films I've seen in the past, but misses a strong distinctive voice. For some the issues I had with Hidden Figures, I at least know who the target audience was for the film and what they wanted to take from the movie. Marshall doesn't really have that same feeling. The writing is never bad, but never as sharp as it feels like it should be until the second half when more gets revealed.

    Marshall in a nutshell I would say is "almost there" as a movie. Fine within the moment but leaves a bit desired when the credits rolled. I wouldn't turn anyone away from seeing this, but may be best suited seen at home.
  • Whether it's the Godfather of Soul, the first black baseball player, or the first black superhero, it's fair to say Chadwick Boseman is becoming one of the best actors of his generation.

    So there was high hopes for this bio-pic about NAACP Civil Rights lawyer and first black supreme court justice Thurgood Marshall.

    The film looks at one of the first cases of his career; a black chauffeur accused of rape by his white employer in Connecticut. Josh Gad is also in the film as a Jewish lawyer roped into being lead on the case when a judge decrees Marshall can only assist. This is important as the Gadd character has never tried a criminal case before.

    You keep expecting Boseman to get that nomination sooner or later, "Get on Up" should have been his ticket, but "Marshall" while pretty good in most areas, just doesn't feel like it has enough weight to it.

    I wish they did go with a bigger case of his, or just go all out and go with the one he's known most for- Brown v. Board of Education.

    The movie becomes another case of a black man being railroaded by a biased and corrupt system built on fabrications. For some that may be enough to hold them; the court room scenes that take up most of the movie are often rousing if not predictable.

    This is all pretty easy-going though- by the second half it's pretty much a comedy the lengths most of the white people in this movie will go to to hide their prejudices.

    At times it almost feels like their trying to start a Thurgood Marshall movie Universe here- like this one may not be that good but we'll tease you with some of the better stuff to come if you want it.

    But even so, Boseman brings life to this character, whether it's Marshall's perceptiveness or his gift of gab, he's cool because he knows he's the smartest guy in the room at any given time.

    Josh Gad has his moments but he still can't seem to fully get out of the goofy sidekick role. We'll have to see how he does in "Murder on the Orient Express".

    Oddly enough this is a bio-pic that comes across more as a crowd-pleasing good time than something that's going to be remembered at the end of the year, which is fine.

    I laughed, I was invested in the court trial mostly, the performances, including from Sterling K. Brown as the chauffeur are very good. Yet you just feel like it should have done more.

    So the score is 7 out of 10. If you guys liked this, check out Craig James Capsule Reviews on Youtube for more.
  • Marshall is a sleek legal drama with great performances from Chadwick Boseman as the title character and Josh Gad. Don't be fooled by the snazzy vintage costumes, the real heart of Marshall's success is its screenplay and the chemistry between its lead actors.

    This film follows pioneering Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall in his earlier years as a lawyer for the NAACP. A white socialite in Greenwich, Connecticut, accuses a black man of rape and attempted murder. The NAACP believes the man, Joseph Spell, is innocent and sends Marshall to defend him. Marshall enlists local lawyer Sam Friedman (Josh Gad) whose previous track record involves tax or insurance cases. Friedman worries about his family's safety due to the unrest the controversial trial causes. Sam and Thurgood must work together to defend Spell…and each other.

    This film is very good and so is its screenplay. The touches of comedy bring a welcome balance to its serious topic and difficult history. There is an array of good lines for Boseman and Gad. Several other actors get a chance to shine as well. I appreciate that Marshall takes its subjects seriously, but doesn't take on a dreary tone doing it. The scenes in the courtroom are intense and keep you interested in the action. As the case develops, these scenes get more and more engaging.

    While Boseman is very good as Thurgood Marshall, his performance is disappointing considering how hyped his portrayal has been in the film's ad campaign. He gives Marshall a suave personality but the script limits his ability to show off his range and really take the character on a journey. On the other hand, Josh Gad is a standout as Sam Friedman. He plays to his comedic strengths as Marshall's sidekick while also giving a genuinely good dramatic performance as a central and evolved character. He is a nice foil to Boseman and their chemistry reminds me of a buddy cop comedy.

    The lesson I take from the film is that you have to follow your moral compass even when it's hard. Sam's unwillingness to join the case makes sense. He is just starting out and worried that it could ruin his reputation. The fact that he does it anyway is a testament to the person Friedman must have been in real life.

    I give Marshall an age rating of 14 to 18 because of some racial and offensive language and suggestive and violent content, including depictions of the alleged assault. And my verdict on Marshall? 4 out of 5 stars. Marshall opens in theaters on October 13, 2017 so go check it out.

    Reviewed by Benjamin P., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.
  • kz917-121 January 2018
    A look at the career of Thurgood Marshall. Maybe more people will know who he is and what exactly he accomplished.

    Kudos entire cast was riveting!
  • I hate to say most, but there's a lot of biopics that are very formulaic in nature. And come to think of it, every genre deals with that issue. I can acknowledge that it's immensely hard to make a film that feels fresh and relevant at the same time. But I think the reason I tend to feel this way about biopics is because a lot of them seem to be directly aimed for the Oscar audience. And while that could be the case with Marshall, it's nothing less than a delightful film to watch.

    As with so many biopics, the main reason Marshall succeeds is Chadwick Boseman's unsurprisingly good turn as the famous lawyer, Thurgood Marshall. Whether or not Thurgood was this way in real life, I absolutely loved the sheer display of confidence in Boseman's portrayal. It was almost to the point of cockiness, without being arrogant. It's that balance that made me appreciate what this man brought to the table.

    Of course, there's also the dynamic of having a story that is still relevant to this day. Not only are people of color still discriminated, underestimated, and not believed in the court of law, but the idea of pitting race against race in the courtroom is something that is still unfortunately an issue today. So in a way, it was disheartening to watch the injustices happening throughout Marshall, as we know they are far from being over in the 1940's, but it's always nice to see something stick up for their people no matter what time period they are from.

    Boseman isn't the only one who gives a good performance as Josh Gad, Sterling K. Brown, Kate Hudson, James Cromwell, and a few others give valuable turns as their respected characters. I think my only issue with the film is that it ultimately felt very safe. I'm not one to know how these real life cases played out, but Marshall definitely feels like it took a guarded approach to the subject matter. Because of that, you can appeal to a mass audience, but I don't know that it was as detailed or thorough that it needed to be. Don't get me wrong, Marshall is a powerful film, but I think it could have taken an even further step forward into that realm.

  • I thought the script was flawed and shallow. One dimensional cliché of a truly great subject. Thurgood Marshall was given short shrift. We need more than a one dimensional caricature to make a movie. Doesn't pass the sniff test. In short this was a quick movie-factory production-line job, as it were. Why? Is it because October is low season?
  • Marshall appeared to be written to the audience of people who probably did not know very much about the early NAACP, or Thurgood Marshall in general. The movie did not captivate his pinnacle case "Brown vs Board of Education Topeka" or his ascension to the Supreme Court. The movie did not highlight any of his 32 cases before the United States Supreme Court. This movie was an introductory that raises one's interest in the subject of this man, his contributions to civil rights, and obstacles that faced African Americans during this period of United States History.

    I would recommend this movie to people who are very knowledgeable of Justice Marshall, or perhaps not fully aware of the ramifications of his life's work. Perhaps millennial, like myself, who cannot fully appreciate the journey and progress of civil rights, were the target audience of this movie.

    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and think it is currently undervalued. The actor who played Justice Marshall was great, the actor who played Mr. Friedman was excellent as well. I would also like to give a shoutout to the way the movie portrayed the residing judge of this case, because he was a very significant character and his transitions in the movie truly gave the movie a climactic moment that really resonated with me. I would recommend Marshall to any of my friends and thought it was great.
  • Marshall is about the true story of Thurgood Marshall. It's set in the 1940's when Marshall was an attorney for The NAACP. Understaffed at the time, the NAACP sends Marshall out on crusades all over the country giving legal defense to blacks who have been wrongly charged with a crime.

    Chadwick Boseman is slick in his portrayal as the future Supreme Court Justice. He reminds me of a young Sydney Poitier with his quiet confidence and his cool style. Josh Gad (Beauty and the Beast) plays opposite of Boseman as a young Jewish attorney, Sam Friedman, who has to be the voice of Marshall in the Connecticut courtroom because Marshall is not a member of the bar in that state.

    Friedman is the exact opposite of Marshall, which makes for some excellent chemistry between the two actors. While Marshall is thorough and prepared (he travels with an entire law book library in his suitcases), Friedman has never even been involved in a criminal case. As a matter of fact, Friedman is such a bad lawyer he is picked by litigants because of his ability to lose cases.

    Slowly a friendship develops between the two men and they soon find that they have more in common that they first thought. Neither is an accepted member of the community; one because of his religion and one because of his race.

    The trail focuses on a case where a black man (actor Joseph Spell) is falsely accused of raping a white woman (Kate Hudson). The movie is both gripping and inspiring. The entire cast is excellent and the movie will have you on an emotional ride from start to finish.

    Marshall is rated "PG-13" and , while it has some violence and sexual situations, I would recommend the movie for any child of school age. It is a very worthwhile movie. It has a run time just under 2 hours.

    The movie will move you both to tears and anger but I highly suggest you go see it. On my "Hollywood Popcorn Scale" Marshall rates a JUMBO!

    Hollywood Hernandez
  • I can give this movie nothing more than a 5 out of 10. Marshall is a fairly average movie all around. I was expecting a serious toned well made movie telling me something about a future Supreme Court Justice. Instead, I got a lackluster average courtroom drama. The acting is average and the characters are almost cartoon-ish. Had this movie been made in the early 1990's I may have been able to give it a 6, because that is what it feels like. A tired early 1990's courtroom drama. To see people rating this movie a 8, or 9 destroys my faith in humanity as a whole, this was not a great, spectacular movie that will make you think, it's a lazy boring sunday, "because there is nothing on," movie.

    It isn't awful just dated. With this being Thurgood Marshall, I was expecting something much more. I was expecting to see something better along the lines of great movies like "A Time to Kill," or something like that. This fell flat by a margin I seriously could not imagine. The dialog is pretty much a caricature that probably was written over the course of a weekend. It's a waste of a good story that could have been great had the film makers taken their time to make it so. As it is, this was likely just greenlighted because of the Marshall name, figuring they could squeeze a few bucks out to make some other flat movie in the future.

    Again, a 5 out of 10. Not a horrible movie, just average in so many ways that it fails to even live up to the ratings people have so far given it. I don't know if they are just biased in favor of the great man portrayed, but the movie itself is not the 7.1 out of 10 people are giving it at the time of this review.
  • jbpeacesi10 October 2017
    Packed house last night at the AMC Lincoln Center Theater for the NY Times Film Club premiere, a crowd of old white presumably liberal folk with a noticeably Jewish vibe. What you'd expect from the Times Film Club, I suppose, but the absence of black faces was very strange, and put the whole experience out of kilter for me. The film seems aimed at a much younger and blacker audience. When, at the beginning of the film, Boseman offhandedly ordered Gad to carry his bags, and Gad complied immediately, the lone outburst of "Whoa!" fell into almost total (shocked?) silence. That set the tone for me. Marshall is flat-out superhero here, the master bringing sidekick Friedman rapidly up to speed on the state of the Real World. That Waking Up Friedman subplot runs in and out of the main courtroom rape drama, where Sterling K Brown and Kate Hudson nearly steal the show with their far more realistic turns as Spell and Strubing, and James Cromwell and Dan Stevens are skin-crawlingly detestable as judge and prosecutor stooping ever lower to defend the racist ivory tower of Bridgeport CT. How this will do immediately at the box office depends on a lot of other factors, including the trailers. But my guess is that the inherent value of the story, which couldn't be more timely, will connect with audiences on a deep level, while the shenanigans on the surface keep them entertained, and the in the end they'll put it together in their own way. I expect this will be a keeper, something that will be on TV and video for a long, long time, and that "Marshall" will enter the rap lexicon on several levels very quickly.
  • You would think it would be straight forward to come up with a provocative movie set in the US when segregation was in vogue. Not so! Roger Friedman is a decendant of Sam Friedman and a film critic who wrote an interesting article criticising the many inaccuracies in this film.

    So, the director and writers have an easy topic to critique history. They had a great man like Thurgood Marshall and some backward social attitudes that are as backward as our attitudes toward domestic violence today. Instead, the authors fill the movie with false facts and make Marshall look like an arrogant, unrefined twit (which he was neither). The directors and writers play the race card in all the wrong ways* and throw in a few sex jibes to top off a good dose of revisionism, undermining what could have been a great movie.

    As others have said, Josh Gad was the better principal actor in this movie. Sterling Brown as the accused was far more nuanced and capable than Chadwick Boseman as Marshall. Boseman is charming, but a totally wrong fit.

    I still give it a 6/10, which is very generous given the director and writers who totally failed to capture the essence of the story. The revisionist history and significant number of factual errors cast a large shadow over what could have been a great movie.

    Is the truth not interesting enough? The real Marshall is an amazing man - far better than Boseman's insulting copy.

    * Hollywood needs to curb its political correctness. I've banned my children from watching new movies until I screen them. That's how bad Hollywood has become. I know quite a few parents who feel the same way.
  • Unless Marshall was cheap private investigator followed around by cheap investigator cheesy jazz music at all times then I am wrong. I was ready to see a bio pic and was served a Dick Tracy movie. I was very interested in knowing his story so I switched to a documentary of his life.

    I like Chadwick Boswell but don't know what happened here. I gave it a 2 instead of a zero because there was a lot of work put in (Just not good work).
  • Better known for is TV series directorial achievements, Reginals Hudlin, this movie's director, hit a home run by providing us with good story telling flick that is also one about an icon of Black History, not a small thing to do. An excellent script from co-writer Michael Koskoff has a great deal to do with that because of his own background as a nationally known attorney (if you know about that sort of thing) and one with experience arguing the kind of cases that Thurgood Marshall could himself have. Then Chadwick Boseman who plays the lead character delivered a spot-on performance, believable and convincing, as Thurgood Marshall. I would venture a guess that Hudlin, Boseman and Koskoff in particular would have known the Marshall bio through and through, and most importantly believed in the telling of the story.

    A brief synopsis from IMDb: The story is about a young Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice, as he battles through one of his career-defining cases.

    No scene is wasted and all serve a purpose building toward the climax at the end.

    There are actors who play important roles in the movie and they are as familiar to the viewers as one could hope to see, they deliver also excellent performances. Case in point, Josh Gad as Sam Friedman the co-counsel to Thurgood; I was glad to see him in this role, a versatile character role where we see a man develop before our very eyes, as Friedman did in real life with that case he defended. Sterling K. Brown as the accused Joseph Spell, brilliant casting. James Cromwell as Judge Foster; Cromwell, the veteran and consummate professional can practically guarantee an expert performance in any role and does just that here.

    Kate Hudson, the always beautiful actress plays Eleanor Strubing, the accuser in the story and Jeremy Bobb as her husband. Bobb has impressed me recently with his performances in 'Manhunt: Unabomber', 'The Knick' and 'Godless'.

    I have seen countless movies about court/law related stories in my days, but one of the scenes near the end is what I'd call a money shot of all money shots in such kind of movies, as it delivers a dramatic moment and one I've never ever seen before. I am certain future movies will borrow from that scene, I'm convinced of it. As much as I'm tempted too tell you more, I don't want to deprive you of that pleasure, you'll recognize it when you see it. Writer Michael Koskoff has to be extremely proud of that and he deserves it. Sterling K. Brown delivered the lines that will never be forgotten, and did so convincingly. See this movie!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film concentrates on one trial in the life of Thurgood Marshall (Chadwick Boseman) iconic civil rights lawyer and later Supreme Court Justice. Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown) is accused of rape. Marshall goes to Connecticut to defend him, but the judge won't let him speak in court. Local insurance attorney Sam Friedman (Josh Gad) does the speaking as Marshall directs.

    This was an excellent film, filled with emotion. Loved every minute.

    Guide: F-word. Implied sex. No nudity.
  • The actors in this intelligent film are all first rate and believable in their roles. Film is strong in mystery and suspense. The film is part of history but very entertaining from start to finish. It's an uplifting and positive film for everyone to enjoy. There are great believable interpersonal relationships. The film is high quality production including the music score. There is no detail that was spared. Plenty of great symbolism in the film for example the images in wall frame pictures in court room. I do expect actor and/or actress and other film awards in the future. Marshall 2017 is a must see film.
  • o-5304426 January 2018
    I watched all of the leading movies made in 2017 and this was by far the best. Marshall did a lot of great work in his life, besides this one early trial. Sequel, please!
  • Marshall is about the true story of Thur-good Marshall. It's set in the 1940's when Marshall was an attorney for The NAACP. Understaffed at the time, the NAACP sends Marshall out on crusades all over the country giving legal defense to blacks who have been wrongly charged with a crime.
  • I was hoping it would be a movie about the life of Thurgood Marshall. Instead it was focused on one case and didn't give much insight into Marshall at all. It was a decent movie, but with the life Marshall led, this can't have been even close to the most interesting story they could have told.
  • I would rate this movie a 5.0 but due to the worst acting I have ever seen (Kate Hudson) I could not get past 1.0.
  • Chadwick Boseman does a nice job with the Marshall character, but he is a bit slick at times. Kate Hudson is convincing, as Josh Gad. The direction and pacing of the film is tight, but sometimes the film has the feeling of been there and done that. What I find truly amazing about this man is how he made it alive through his long and distinguished career. He would have seemed to me to be a more natural target for assassination; much more than King or Malcolm X. King was always in the company of many associates, and Malcolm X seldom left New York City. Marshall was in the Deep South during the segregation years; often by himself or possibly one other person. This is a good film and shows the bigotry in the North was about equal to that of the bigotry in the South. Recommended.
  • brummieman28 December 2018
    I don't think I can add anything to what has already been written without giving any spoilers so I'll just say , go see it, its a great courtroom drama , no boring parts and it keeps your interest until the end
An error has occured. Please try again.