StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

tdrish Women falling victim of sex crimes? Happens all the time. What if your job profession was...prostitution? Should you still be protected under law, when you're doing something illegal? Here's something else the film tackles, and it adds a strong foundation to the mix: What if you could not think in a linear way? Meaning, your mind is just not wired like your usual Sam, Tam or Sally? Would you be able to stand trial, or would you be deemed incapable by the court because you are, as the movie puts it, "Nuts". Even if a woman is crazy, they should still not fall victim to a sex crime, which is what happens to our lead female ( played by Streisand). When she kills the man who viciously attacked her in self defense, she wants to be her own lawyer for the trial. The entire premise of the movie just revolves around her arguing with her lawyer and defense attourneys of the state weather she has the mental capacity to stand trial. And while the movie fails to deliver the goods on how the trial is all played out, we will never see the real court case, the movie just simply demands the "yes" or "no" question. Does it work? In a word, yes! This isn't a typical court room movie where we find out if she's guilty or innocent, Nuts just simply asks the question...can a woman deemed crazy be qualified to be her own lawyer at trial. While she does seem a bit off in her thinking, at times, she can be powerfully witty, which adds plenty of humor to the film. I also liked the realism of the use of the courtroom, its very believable, unlike some other cheesy attempts made in other films. ( What was it with those vibrant colors used in all those 80's movies, anyway?) All in all, Nuts is a winner, almost clocked in at two hours, but does not bore you, even for a minute. It's a movie that proves that sometimes, your sanity cannot be put on trial, even if you're trying to plead temporary insanity.

guy-bellinger Powerful, punchy, full of frills and spills, why on earth does this exciting court drama remain so little known? 'Nuts', Martin Ritt's next to last opus, is an excellent work though. The direction is solid and its fast-paced editing combined with first-rate performances from such established talents as Richard Dreyfuss, Maureen Stapleton, Karl Malden, Eli Wallach... are a decided guarantee of excitement. At the same time, Martin Ritt, has never been as the king of hollow entertainment, so you can be assured that, as a bonus, he will give you food for thought. Tom Topor's finely crafted play indeed gives him a new opportunity (remember 'The Great White Hope, 'Conrack', 'Norma Rae'...) to advocate human dignity (the basic theme of all his body of work). Ritt does it this time through questioning the limits of American justice and, by extension, of American democracy. In 'Nuts', he rises one more time against the vices undermining the virtues of the system, namely self- righteousness, hypocrisy, selfishness and intolerance. Fortunately for the viewer, the director never preaches. On the contrary, he has the intelligence of putting emotions and entertainment first, making meaning derive from the action instead of inducing it the way they do in heavily demonstrative 'thesis films'.A lot of reviewers keep complaining about Barbra Streisand being hammy as Claudia Draper, a woman accountable to no-one whose parents want to pass off as insane. I agree with them that Streisand does not go in for subtleties but supposing she did wouldn't be out of step with her character? Claudia's behavior is determined by her adamant resolution to be her own and only mistress, whatever the circumstances are. Now, refusing to be subject to or controlled at any time by - parents, husband, superiors, judges,... requires no small strength of mind, especially when you are a woman. Taking this factor into account, a peremptory tone, strong words, abrupt attitudes or poses make perfect sense then. Playing such a character as Mrs. Soft Touch would even be sheer misinterpretation. Anyway, what just cannot be denied is Barbara's deep personal involvement in the achievement of 'Nuts'. Not only does she give a sincere and passionate performance (even if considering she overplays) but she also produced the film and wrote its score. Not really surprising when you realize both the fictional Claudia and the real-life Barbara are equally determined, and straightforward – not to say pushy. Such a miraculous adequation just could not not be. To put it in a nutshell if you do not mind intelligent entertainment feel free to enjoy 'Nuts'... without restraint

Robert J. Maxwell In 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.

jzappa Though 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.