Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Miles burton This film was an early Martin Campbell film (Casino Royale, 2006) I thought this film was really good, the performances both from Gary Oldman and Kevin Bacon were brilliant. Gary Oldman played the brilliant and successful lawyer who defended Kevin Bacon in court with suspicion of Murder. Kevin Bacon gets off, but doesn't leave Gary Oldman's character alone, Oldman has suspicion that he was guilty, and didn't want to defend him again. The tension between Gary Oldman and Bacon was brilliant, For an oldish film it was very good. There have been many films like these in the past, but this was one of the first films to have that idea that the suspect is not innocent. It's interesting to see just how young Oldman and Bacon are in the film, but Oldman gives one of his greatest performances i've ever seen, along with State of Grace (1990) This film is definitely worth seeing!

spazberryme I picked this movie because I was in the mood for a crime thriller, and I love Gary Oldman and Kevin Bacon. I thought it was weird that I had never heard of this movie, but now I can see why.Kevin Bacon actually delivers in his usual role as a creepy rapist, and Gary Oldman is not bad considering what he had to work with. I did have to snort at some of his overwrought intensity, but it did not really seem like that was his fault as much as the filmmakers.I felt annoyed with the movie as soon as the Nietzsche quote appeared in the beginning, it struck me as pretty cliché. Then Oldman did his whole "clear" thing with the glass of water and I was like... OK that was a pointless prop, he's showing the jury that water is clear just like the facts? That's pretty dumb. But as dumb as the movie was presenting itself to be, it was truly I who was dumb, thinking that with Oldman and Bacon this was still going to be a good movie.The dumbest thing about the movie is that the majority of scenes are completely pointless or make no sense. First of all, the entire premise is stupid. Why did rich attorney Oldman go wandering around in the woods in the rain looking for Bacon in the first place, just because he called him? Why did he run to find someone instead of just using the phone in his car? Why did he go to the extent of becoming his lawyer just to get a special "in" on him? The majority of the film is Oldman brooding and snooping around on his own, little time is actually focused on the relationship which is supposed to be the whole point of his scheme. Why wouldn't the police have figured out right away that all the victims had been treated by the prime suspect's mother, something that would have shown up in medical records? Even many small scenes had me going, wait, what? For example, Oldman goes to Bacon's house, presumably to meet him... snoops around the room until he gets caught by the mom and then he just leaves... so why was he there in the first place?? Why does he meet up with the cop lady in a playground with milk and cookies? Why does he imagine that he is having sex with Bacon's character, honestly?? And why does the mom try to protect the son who is raping and murdering her patients??? And what was the point of even having the old man character? And why does Oldman visit him randomly in the hospital??? That was so random... like, here's this old man you saw for two seconds in the beginning for no reason, and oh yeah he's in the hospital for a few more seconds, because why not.. And I had kind of zoned out by the end, but how did Bacon even get into the courtroom alone with Oldman with a gun just by firing a few shots??I will say there was some interesting camera work and cool set design.But the most unbearable thing is the amount of dialogue. The few minutes of Bacon being menacing are actually scary, but the majority of the movie is just people talking. Talking, talking, talking with no plot development. But whatever, it's not like film is a visual medium or anything.I like how the film ended pointlessly with Oldman just walking out of the room... because I did not have the energy to sit through an attempt at an actual ending anyway. It was actually better with no ending because at least it was over sooner!!!

blanche-2 In 1988's Criminal Law, Gary Oldman plays Ben Chase, an attorney who defends a man, Martin Thiel (Kevin Bacon) accused of a particularly vicious murder. With clever lawyering, he gets Thiel off, only to realize shortly afterward that Thiel is guilty and out there killing again. This time, though, Thiel is playing a mind game with Chase and wants to retain him when suspicion falls on him for a second murder that Ben knows he committed. Ben wants to right the wrong of the first "not guilty" plea so he agrees to work as Thiel's attorney, hoping for inside information that will convict the man.This is very interesting premise, though the various themes get lost in an uneven script that tries to do too much. The focus actually becomes the performances of Oldman and Bacon - Oldman giving a very emotional performance and Bacon a very cold one. Posts here have pronounced Oldman as hammy - hammy to me is when a performance is bigger than the emotions underneath so that the performance seems phony. Here, the character of Ben seemed to be truly overwrought, and the emotions came from a real place. Oldman at any rate is an interesting actor, and this material in the hands of a lesser one would have made it dismissible. As it is, the film survives on the basis of the work of the two actors.Honing in on one theme rather than several would have helped "Criminal Law." It tries to tackle psychosis, legal technicalities, the law versus justice, attorney-client privilege, mystery and romance in one script. When it comes out of the Mixmaster, it's all pretty vague.

George Parker (taaa-daaa)....what the hell is a Mystfest anyway? "Criminal Law", an aging thriller/suspense flick, features a supercharged Oldman plays a hotshot attorney who gets involved with a client who....aw, never mind. This film is so convoluted I felt like I should be taking notes. The problem is, I was too busy yawning. Engaging at first, "CL" wears itself out early on as Campbell steers his crew through a rote production, apparently obsessed propagating his notion of good film to the exclusion of the audience's. A dreary Canadian shoot with a made-for-tv feel, "CL" gives us little with which to empathize and so we quickly disengage and let the movie run wearing itself out to the drooping of audience eye lids.