brett@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/11/85)
Jagged Edge reminds me of a Perry Mason episode.
A murder starts off the story, a helpless accused party
seeks out the attorney to defend him/her, an attorney
takes the case, the attorney and his/her assistant investigate
the case. In Jagged Edge, Jeff Bridges stars as a husband
accused of murder; Glenn Close stars as the attorney who
investigates Bridges' wife's murder. Previews do well
to conceal the Perry Mason-like quality of the movie.
The movie has some fine performances, yet
it starts out slow after the murder scene. I found myself
checking my watch midway through the movie. Yet
since I've always found courtroom battles compelling -
I found Close's performance to be quite good as the
movie progressed. I'm not sure this is academy quality
acting, but we do see Glenn Close in action. Jeff Bridges
does OK, but does nothing to show me why I shouldn't be
on screen. OK, so my father wasn't on screen, so I guess
it doesn't run in the family.
To take the analogy with Perry Mason a bit further, Jagged
Edge also has a prosecuting attorney who we grow to dislike.
In the Perry Mason episodes it was Hamilton Burger, in this
case we have an ex-colleague of Closes' from earlier in her
career. The prosecutor provides the antogonist which stories
like this need to focus the viewer's tensions in the courtroom.
Like Perry Mason, Close has an assistant (not named Paul Drake)
which assists in the investigation.
Unlike Perry Mason episodes, where we have a
number of possible "suspects", Jagged Edge provides us
with only two. This limits the imagination we
as viewers are permitted to have to reason the murder out.
Unfortunately, the story "unfolds" so it is not a murder
mystery in the classical sense - rather it is more
episodic - that is the movie unveils the second suspect
towards the end of the courtroom battle. So the viewer
has little to do throughout the movie but study the relationship
between Close and Bridges. Unfortunately, for me, the relationship
was superficial - I wanted suspects and action and didn't get
that. Oh, well.
In short, if you like Perry Mason-like genre this movie is
for you. It is medium "quality". On a scale from 1-10 (10
being best) this movie gets a 6 or 7. It's nothing great,
but not a serious disappointment either. The ending
of the movie is unusual.
--
Brett Fleisch
University of California Los Angeles
LOCUS Research Group
3804-f Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (213) 825-2756, (213) 474-5317
brett@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...sdcrdcf, ihnp4, trwspp, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!brett
-------------------------------------------------------------------------don@axiom.UUCP (Donald F. Picard) (10/25/85)
[]
Warning: the following is a MAJOR SPOILER to the plot of _Jagged_Edge_.
Read at your own risk.
Maybe I missed something, but the major problem I had with the plot was
that we were supposed to believe that Jeff Bridges (I forget the character's
name) was supposed to have been "planning" this murder for 1 1/2 years.
How did he know so far in advance that the Tennis Pro would be fired from
the old club, come to work at the new club, meet up with Jeff's wife,
get involved with her, etc, etc ... Did the plot hinge on this or not?
Was Jeff trying to implicate the Tennis Pro, or was the Tennis Pro just
"unlucky"? It was not at all clear to me. It was also not clear (as
has already been mentioned by others) that the person Glenn Close shot
was Jeff. I think that it was supposed to be him. At least I don't
think it was supposed to be ambiguous, whoever it was.
Another problem I had was that I did not think that there was enough
justification for the relationship between Glenn and Jeff and especially how
she was supposed to feel towards him. Why didn't she turn Jeff in immediately
upon finding the typewriter? Did she "love" him, and was she debating
not letting anyone know that Jeff was a murderer? Why did she tell
Jeff that she had found the typewriter? Would she have believed him
if he tried to explain it away? What happened in her conversation with
her detective friend (the one that occurred right after she had called
Jeff) when she just wanted the "thank him for all he's done". I must
have missed a moment there, because all of a sudden she became calm,
cool and collected. Had she figured out what would soon unfold (ie:
Jeff coming over to kill her) and decided she did not need the detectives
help?
I think another problem is that the movie tried to be too many things
at once, so we just did not get the development we need. I am sorry,
but I need more than I ride on some horses to convince me that a
professional lawyer would breech an unwritten rule of not getting
involved with the client. Her morals and scruples seemed very important
to her, and I had a hard time believing she would throw them away
so casually.
All in all, I enjoyed the film. It has been a long time since I have
seen an entire audience jump (although I confess that I don't go to
Friday the 13th part n slashers ...) and I sure felt a good deal of
suspense/tension.
--
---
Don Picard
{allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!donpking@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/31/85)
I think she became cool and collected during the phone call because she KNEW what she was going to do. The Jeff Bridges character had told her he was coming over, her belief was that he was really the murderer, for heaven's sake she was laying in bed with a gun, that was why she was reasonably calm, she was going to shoot him. The decetive was smart enough to come over when she sounded funny on the phone, although I briefly hoped it was the Jeff Bridges character running up the stairs. Besides she couldn't turn him in for murder, he'd already been acquitted for the murder, and he couldn't be tried twice for the same crime.