Real Lawyer Reacts to The Rainmaker (Francis Ford Coppola’s Legal Masterpiece)

Real Lawyer Reacts to The Rainmaker (Francis Ford Coppola’s Legal Masterpiece)

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

– [James] Thanks to Audible for keeping Legal Eagle in the air. – Don’t call me a liar. – Oh you’re a liar all right.
– Mr. Jones. – You son of a (bleep) (yelling) – And the bailiff tackled them. (playful music) Hey legal eagles, it’s time
to think like a lawyer. Today we are covering one
of my all-time favorite legal dramas, it is The
Rainmaker, starring Matt Damon. This I think will be the first
time I have seen this movie since becoming a lawyer,
I think it has been over 10 years since I’ve seen this movie. – I’m nervous, real nervous. – I’m really hoping it stands
up to the test of time. I remember it being really good. So of course, be sure to comment
in the form of an objection which I will either sustain or overrule, and stick around until
the end of the video where I give The Rainmaker
a grade for legal realism. So without further ado, let’s
dig in to The Rainmaker. – Well before we can file it the claim, I need all three of you to sign this. – When is Daddy coming here? – Well, he said he wasn’t. Some days he comes in,
some days he doesn’t. – Well this is a contract. – What’s in it? – Oh the usual, it’s standard language. It basically says that y’all
hire us to be your attorneys and we take care of the case for you. We handle any expenses
that you might have, and then we get one third of any recovery. – All right so this is what’s called a retention agreement, which
is something you rarely see in the movies, but it is
something that is absolutely ethically required to be able
to actually represent people. It lays out the terms of your engagement, and it lays out the terms of
your compensation as well. And the contract that is being signed here is a fairly standard one for plaintiffs working on contingency. The plaintiff’s attorneys
will pay for the costs, which can sometimes be
very, very expensive in terms of filing fees and
experts and deposition costs, and then if there is
any recovery at the end, the plaintiff’s attorneys
will get one third to say 40% of what is recovered. You might say that that is a lot of money, especially when you’re
sometimes dealing with thousands or millions of dollars, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys
take on a huge amount of risk. They might be out tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or thousands of man hours to work up these cases with no guarantee that they’re going to get anything. So that is the trade-off when you’re dealing with contingency work. – Well why does it take two
pages to say all of that? – Lawyers, man, they’re the worst. – No wonder I’m dying. – Donnie Ray has leukemia
and his medical insurance denied him a bone marrow transplant, which would have provided
relief to his condition. That’s the point of this law suit. – For the record, my
name is Leo F. Drummond of Tenley Brit, counsel for Great Benefit, and I say if this young man
has passed the Bar Exam, your Honor, let him argue the case. We welcome him to big-time litigation. (laughs) – You have no objection, Mr. Drummond? – If it please the
court, I would be honored to introduce Mr. Baylor
to the practice of law in the great state of Tennessee. Judge, you can give him the oath right now and I’ll be pleased to stand for him. – That’s actually not just a formality. Usually in order to stand
for the oath of office, you have to be sponsored
by a practicing attorney. This is such a good scene because you have this big firm lawyer who knows
he’s getting a huge advantage by getting this greenhorn attorney, and rather than getting a continuance or dealing with another
more seasoned attorney, he is offering to sponsor this young man to take the oath of office
so that he can, you know, litigate against someone that doesn’t know what they’re doing. Kudos to John Grisham for writing this and kudos to Francis Ford
Coppola for the way that they staged it, it’s so good. – Mr. Drummond, you objected to the fast tracking of this case. What’s the problem? – Well your Honor, this
issue’s already been ruled upon by Judge Hale. The preparations required
fast tracking the case place an undue burden on
both parties, I believe. – Nonsense. – Nice. – Let me ask you something, Mr. Drummond. As a defense lawyer, have you ever agreed to the fast tracking of a law suit? – Well your Honor, I believe I have. – (laughs) Fine, give
me the name of the case and the court it was in. – Fast tracking, by the
way, is a thing that exists in lots of different jurisdictions. It doesn’t have a consistent meaning, it depends on what
particular court you’re in, but often cases will have different tracks based on how complex they are, and the need for any due process here, and given that there is
a young man who is dying of leukemia here, you can
imagine that fast tracking would be very, very important to make sure that all the necessary discovery is taken before he passes away. – How about next Thursday afternoon? – Great for me, your Honor. – I’m sorry, your Honor. – That’s a week from today. – I believe I’m out of town. Yes, I am out of town Thursday. – Deposition is set for
next Thursday afternoon at two PM, sorry if it
inconveniences the defense, but god knows there’s enough
of you guys to handle it. (laughs) Now this next– – So I have actually seen
a judge make a statement almost identical to that. It is one of the disadvantages
of showing up to court with a whole army of attorneys, sometimes I’ve been on
the side of the army and sometimes I’ve been on
the side of just one person, but when you show up with
multiple people in court and you claim that your
schedule doesn’t allow you to participate in certain things, the judge will just look
at all of the other people that are at counsel table and say “well if you’re not
available, then one of these “other people will be
available to take care of it,” so that’s one of the
issues when you show up with a whole bunch of other co-counsel. – [Rudy] I’m looking at a team of lawyers who are pulling down $1,000
an hour, and I hate them. From their lofty perch pissing down on the whole justice system with disdain. I used to hate them because I
wasn’t good enough for them. Now I hate them for who they represent and what they represent. – [Man] Your Honor, how are you? – Fine sir, hope the
dogs didn’t startle you. – We’ll do this thing outside. – It’s a little cramped
inside, just have a seat here. – So it would be very unusual
to hold a deposition outside, just because you know,
you’re in the elements and it’s hard to do, but it
would not be unusual at all to have a whole bunch of
attorneys on both sides to participate in one of the
central depositions in the case, especially when you’re
dealing with toxic torts, where you have lots and
lots of different companies and they all have counsel,
you might have 30 people in a room participating in the deposition. (tense music) – Hey Donnie Ray. – Hey. – [Rudy] You’ve already met Judge Kippler. – You would also definitely want to record the deposition testimony
with a video camera, as they are doing here. There is an added cost, of course, but it is so important to be able to see the intonation and the facial expressions of these important witnesses when they’re giving their
deposition testimony. What is really, really unusual here is that the judge is
participating in the deposition, sort of as an observer. Often you have discovery disputes that happen during the deposition, where you threaten to call up the judge to adjudicate the matter
so that you don’t have to stop the deposition and
pick it up days later. I guess it could be the case where the judge just wants to
stick it to the other side, so the judge actually
participates in deposition itself. I have never seen that, but
it theoretically could happen. – A young Rudy Baylor, and just on time too. – Mr. Young. – Get this boy some coffee, Tyler. – Jack Underhall.
– Rudy Baylor. – Nice to meet you. – A young lawyer’s always a hungry lawyer. All this boy’s claims. – [Rudy Voiceover] There must be 100 years of legal experience
gathered around the table. My staff has flunked
the Bar exam six times. – Now Rudy, don’t be intimidated by all these boys on this side of the table, I guarantee you get them on a golf course, they fold like a cheap suit. – John Voight plays such a
great, pompous, big law attorney. He’s just taking up
all the air in the room and he’s trying to dominate
his opposing counsel. He’s just playing such
a jerk and it’s perfect. God, that is exactly what these older, big firm attorneys are likely to do. – I think maybe it’s appropriate to start with the corporate designee,
Jack Underhall here. – [Rudy] I don’t think so. – I beg your pardon? – Well you heard me, I want to start with Jackie Lemancyzk, the claims handler. – I think it’s best we
start with Mr. Underhall. – All due respect, Mr. Drummond, this is my deposition, I’m
gonna call these witnesses in the order which I see fit. So I’d like to start
with Jackie Lemancyzk. Maybe we should just go call the judge. – That’s a great threat,
perfectly reasonable too. You can do that. – You get pugilistic
this time of the morning? (laughs) – I’m not meaning to be pugilistic. – We’re simply having a little problem with Jackie Lemancyzk, this Polish woman. – What sort of problem?
– Polish woman, jeez. – She doesn’t work here anymore. – Was she fired? – She resigned. She resigned. – Um, well where is she now? – Well, she is no longer
working for our client, and we can’t produce her as a
witness, so let’s move along. – That’s true, if the
employee is no longer with the corporation, the
corporation is under no duty to produce that person for a deposition. But you can bet that there
was probably some shenanigans that led to that particular person no longer working at this company. – This bugging device has
got medium-grade circuitry. A weak transmitter, probably manufactured in Czechoslovakia. I don’t think the cops or
the feds would place this. – Somebody else is listening. – Who else would listen to us? – I got a pretty good idea. – So Rudy’s office got bugged. For a long time, I thought
that would be completely unrealistic, but lately there have been some law firms that have
gotten in really hot water, maybe not for bugging their opponents, but for doing some really shady things. For example, David Boies hiring an Israeli security firm on behalf
of Harvey Weinstein. Nowadays, what used to be
something that would only be seen in fiction is actually
becoming more realistic. That’s, that’s a sorry
state that we live in. – [Rudy Voiceover] The
judge gave us the names of 92 potential jurors. We investigated their backgrounds and we rated them with
plus or minus numbers. – What do you want me to do? – All right, here we go.
– What? – [Rudy] Any direct
contact would of course be a serious offense. – What are we doing? – We’re gonna do this
thing, just do what I say. – Okay. (phone rings) – Hello? – Yeah uh, Rudy Baylor please. – [Rudy] This is Rudy Baylor. – Uh, this is Billy Porter. You stopped by the shop today. – Yes, Mr. Porter, thank you very much for calling back. – But what do you want? – [Rudy] Yes, it’s about
the trial, you know, the one you got a jury summons for? I’m one of the lawyers. – Uh-huh, is this legal? – Uh, of course it’s legal, Mr. Porter, just don’t go telling anybody. (laughs) – So at this point,
opposing counsel has bugged Rudy’s phone and listen
to the false information of him pretending to talk
to one of the jury members, and so he is going to
try to voir dire the jury and elicit information
about this jury tampering that actually didn’t happen. – Fairly brilliant way to
screw with opposing counsel. – Did you, Mr. Porter, or did you not have a phone conversation a few days ago with Mr. Rudy Baylor? – Hell no. – [Leo] I thought you were
gonna give me an honest answer. – I gave you an honest answer. – [Leo] Are you sure, Mr. Porter? – I’m damn sure. – Mr. Porter, in a courthouse, in a courthouse in the United States, in a courthouse of justice
in the state of Tennessee, I say you did not
provide an honest answer. – Don’t call me a liar. – Oh you’re a liar all right.
– Mr. Jones. – You son of a (bleep) (yelling) – And the bailiff tackled them. (yelling) – Bailiff, remove Mr.
Porter from this courtroom. Mr. Billy Porter, you are
excused from the jury. – Yeah, seems like a good
reason to dismiss a juror. – Your Honor, I move to dismiss the entire panel, your Honor. – Denied.
(laughs) – So Rudy fed them false information. The defense counsel bought
it hook, line, and sinker, and they made a fool of themselves, and now the jury probably
hates defense counsel. So great job by Rudy under
the odd circumstances of having his office and phone
bugged by opposing counsel. I don’t know if that’s the
right tactic to have taken. If he had taken that
information to the judge, Leo Drummond, the defense counsel, could have been disbarred,
and that would really have thrown a wrench
into the entire defense. – Please state your name for the record. – Mrs. Margerene Black. – Now Mrs. Black, you are
the mother of Donny Ray Black who recently died of
acute myosolidic leukemia because the defendant, Great Benefit– – Objection, leading. – Yeah, common mistake that lawyers make, especially on direct examination is that they try to fit too much into the question instead of just letting the
witness tell their story. On direct examination,
the lawyer should just disappear into the background, you’re just facilitating the testimony and you’re asking open-ended
questions like what happened, how did that make you
feel, what happened next, can you explain that? And he is asking very leading questions, shouldn’t do that. – You must be stupid, stupid, stupid. Sincerely, Everett Leftkin, vice president, claims department. (sniffles) – Read it again. – Objection, repetitious, your Honor. – Sustained.
– Correct. Not allowed to do that. – I tender the witness. – Mr. Drummond. – Your Honor, please remove that exhibit. – Oh man, that is, that is so great. I’ve actually never seen
this in a movie before. It is a common trial tactic to, when you have a demonstrative, whether it is a projector or a, you know, a physical
blow-up of a document, to leave them up for as
long as you possibly can, to have the greatest effect on the jury. The experienced trial lawyer,
the fist thing he does before he begins his cross-examination is he tells the other side to
take down his demonstrative. That is possibly the greatest trial detail I think I have ever seen in a movie, it’s just, it’s perfect. – Hi this is Deck Shifflet, I need to speak to Big
Ryan, can you connect me? – [Man] Be right over, just a second. – Okay. (playful music) – Hello. – [Deck] Hey boss, it’s Deck. – Oh hey Deck, how you doing? – [Deck] Good, how are you? – Well cool.
– Are you here? – Well I’m here and there. – Uh, here and there. – So in the book version,
Deck Shifflet actually knows where Bruiser put all
of his illegal money, which is a difference between
the movie and the book, which I listened to on Audible. – Listen, I got a stolen
evidence situation. – Okay, stolen evidence, uh, let’s see. Uh, the de Soto case. – [Deck] De Soto? – Carmine de Soto, you
remember him, Club Ruby? – Uh-huh, where do I find that? – Uh, around ’92 you’ll
find it, let’s see, 650 something uh, southwest second. – [Deck] Boss, you’re a life-saver, ’92? – Yeah, Club Ruby case. – So that’s really funny because
what they are talking about is the case citation for
a case that apparently has some good authority
on using stolen evidence. He said you can find it in 650 something, southwest second, and then
he didn’t give a pin site, but what he is talking about is the volume itself, the book
of the compendium of cases, all the reported cases, 650 something, in the southwest second reporter, which is absolutely the right reporter, where you will find all of these cases. That’s another thing that you
rarely see in legal movies is the correct nomenclature
for finding a case citation. – This is the claims
manual that was given to me by Jackie Lemancyzk. – Objection, your Honor, stolen
work papers, inadmissible. Rule on this. – [Judge] Sustained. – May we approach? – [Leo] I thought this
matter was already settled. – Your Honor, I just
this morning found a case that is controlling in
this factual situation. (clattering) If you’ll just take a look at this ruling. It’s Club Ruby versus Carmine de Soto, copy for your Honor and
one for Mr. Drummond. Number 585 southwest second, page 431, argued by Bruiser, by J.
Lyman Stone, and it shows very clearly that stolen
documents are in fact admissible if the lawyers played
no part in the theft. – Well according to these headnotes, this case will overrule your objection. – Yeah so the trial court is
not bound by its own prior rulings, it can revisit its
rulings for the most part. This is a great example of
what’s called a pocket brief, where you will either take the case or write a quick argument, write it down so that you can provide it to the judge when the need arises, and
here he has provided this case to the judge to revisit the prior decision on stolen work product, and
what the judge mentions, this is such a great detail too. The judge didn’t read
the actual full case, but he read what he called headnotes. Headnotes are the summaries
that the case databases put at the top of the case so you don’t have to read
the entire case itself, it summarizes the relevant law. Such attention to detail, it’s incredible. – This case will overrule your objection. Sorry Leo.
(laughs) – Oh I’m sure you are, your Honor, but note my strong objection. – Objection noted. – May I approach? – Oh and this is another great detail. The stenographer stands up from her desk so that she can take down
what is being discussed between the judge and the counsel, even though it’s not being
projected over the PA system, she is still taking down the dialog that’s going on because that
has to go in the record. I don’t think I’ve ever
seen that in a legal movie, it’s just, it’s perfect. – Mr. Keeley, this a
report from Great Benefit’s own medical committee, which you chaired. Would you please read from line 18. – Since bone marrow transplants
have become standard procedure, Great Benefit
would be financially justified in investing in bone marrow clinics. – [Rudy] Approach the witness, your Honor. – [Judge] You may. – [Rudy] Thank you. There you go, a little louder. – Objection, your Honor, repetitious. – Oh my god, that’s so good. I think this was done on purpose, and I think it’s to show that Rudy is sort of becoming a great trial lawyer. If we rewind it back, in the prior scene, he moves the microphone
away with the binder, he kind of nudges it away,
making the microphone a little bit further away, so that when the witness
reads this incredibly damning statement, it’s
a little low in volume. He then walks back to the witness stand, moves the microphone towards the witness, and asks that the witness
read the statement again because it wasn’t picked
up the first time, but I think the point
there is to show that he moved it away on purpose
so that he could get around the normal objection to
repetitious testimony. I’ve seen an attorney essentially
do the exact same thing when moving the microphone
closer to the witness so that they can say it more
clearly for the second time to really hammer home this great evidence. This is just, this is
amazing, it’s amazing. (upbeat music) All right, that was The Rainmaker, one of my favorite legal
movies of all time, and I’m glad to see that it stands up, but now it’s time to
give the movie a grade for legal realism.
(gavel bangs) On the one hand, we have a
very, very realistic trial. We have trial tactics that not only exist in the real world, but this
movie captures nuances that I’ve just never seen in any
other work of legal fiction. On the other side, there are
some bits of dramatic license. You have bad lawyers, but frankly, they’re bad lawyers within
the narrative of the story, so they should be behaving badly. So that actually seems to make sense. All in all, I think this might be the most accurate legal
drama that I’ve ever seen. So I’m giving The Rainmaker an A+. I had no idea it was directed
by Francis Ford Coppola. It’s just beautiful. – I guess that’s it. – Did you know that John
Grisham says this movie is the best adaptation
of any of his books? It’s easy to see why, because
this movie is fantastic, but the book is almost as good. I wanted to see what the differences were between the movie and the book, so I prepared for this review by listening to The Rainmaker on Audible. Audible is great because you can read no matter what else you’re doing, like responding to
improper copyright claims on your YouTube videos. – I need a smoke. – I know you do, but
we’ll get to that later. – Audible is giving Legal Eagles like you a free 30-day trial. All you need to do is go over
to, click the link in the description, or text LegalEagle to 500500. You can download any
audiobook of your choosing, and you’ll get two Audible
originals for free. Clicking on the link really
helps out this channel. – You’d be crazy not to take that. – If you liked The
Rainmaker by John Grisham, you will love his other books. He is a very prolific writer. So there are over 30
different John Grisham books available on Audible,
including his brand new book The Reckoning, and classics like The Firm, and A Time to Kill. So head over to or text LegalEagle to 500500. Do you agree with my grade? – Absolutely. – Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist over here with all of my other
real lawyer reactions, where I will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to The Rainmaker (Francis Ford Coppola’s Legal Masterpiece)

  • LegalEagle Post author

    Help support the channel and get a free audiobook (plus two Audible originals) and a 30-day trial of Audible at – or text "legaleagle" to 500-500 on your phone.

  • Tlaloc Raingod Post author

    If the defense counsel had taken the illegally acquired phone conversation to the judge couldn't Matt Damon's character have shown that he was not in fact talking to the juror but talking to someone pretending to be the juror to smoke out the illegal surveillance? Phone records of the calls made would seem to be sufficient evidence (along with the denial of the juror and the evidence of the bug).

  • TheSefirosu200x Post author

    Tennessee? Hmm… Not sure the accents are totally right. I live here. Usually, when movies have southern accents, they're the "classy" or cool sounding ones. TN accents are the trashiest of southern accents. This movie has accents which are a bit too smooth.

  • Rickety Reckdown Post author

    I feel bad for the idiots who think they can get away with a copyright strike on a lawyer. Bitch he is the law. You can't pull cord on a lawyer unless you're another lawyer

  • hannah bree Post author

    How to be a stenographer?

  • hannah bree Post author

    How to be a stenographer?

  • hannah bree Post author

    How to be a stenographer?

  • suidyena Post author

    Objection! Just found your vids and working my way through them. I skimmed the list though and I can't believe you have A Few Good Men and didn't cover The Rules of Engagement yet. I hope to see it soon.

  • Adam West Post author

    If the supreme court decides to overturn row vs wade and allow these draconian laws to stand I propose that the men on the supreme court should have to have vasectomies.

  • adam smith Post author

    If you haven't already, can you please do Twelve Angry Men?

  • Groteskfull Post author

    I should rewatch this movie, I haven't seen it since it was out in theatres.

    On an unrelated note… There is something about the way you look that reminds me of a young Chris Isaak/Randy Travis. Do you happen to sing and play guitar in addition to being a lawyer?

  • Anna George Post author

    Objection! A lawyer said "lawyers are the worst"

  • laartist86 Post author

    Great stuff!! Would you review A Civil Action 1998 starring John Travolta? I think he was up for an academy award for this role. It would be interesting to see if being an Oscar nominee brings him closer to being an accurate lawyer.

  • Poke fan Post author

    Danny diveto

  • Raenir Salazar Post author

    I think that taking the bug to the judge might not have proven anything. If they didnt have a means of directly tracing it to the defence team, then they would've lost an avenue to screw with them.

  • Faye Vincent Post author

    Objection! You're a lawyer and I think you Sean cool as fuzz my dude.😎💜💗💝💘

  • Ronon Post author

    You should cover (If you haven't already) the film Inherit The Wind.

  • TheGuy WhoWentThere Post author

    12:40 – That laugh XD

    That's genuine right there.

  • mike young Post author

    You really seem to know a lot about the law. You should quit this YouTube grind and become an attorney.

  • Mitch McCann Post author

    You know the title made me think of rainman, and that had some legal issues that I don't really know about.

  • patrick bootie Post author

    Prob with going to the judge is would have to prove it was the other side bugging you not sure if they have the resources to do that in this instance I'm sure you can argue who else has reason but will , you win against the next layer group that the Corp buys

  • Joshua Latham Post author

    Come on, if there's one youtube channel you shouldnt' file a false claim against it's the channel owned by a professional contract lawyer.

  • Jim Humphries Post author

    But if he had gotten the defense counsel disbarred it would have resulted in a mistrial and that is not what your looking for when your client is dying. He wanted a verdict expeditiously.

  • zingzangspillip1 Post author

    I would love to see a review of Otto Preminger's film 'Anatomy of a Murder', starring James Stewart & George C Scott. It is very famous for its realism as a legal movie; right up your alley!

  • Dominic Mosimann Post author

    It alienates me that a good earning lawyer has to finance his hobby (running a youtube channel) by advertising. That downgrades your whole channel away from sympatic and professional to standard profit oriented mainstream. What a pitty.

  • Jon Doe Post author

    No objections to this review yh

  • ArtemioM05 Post author

    Curious if you'll review Better Call Saul: Chicanery

    Great episode

  • pvthitch Post author

    6:25 I dated a woman who lived on that street.

  • James Devers Post author

    This is one of my favorite John Grisham books.

    The Last Juror is my all time Favorite. I've probably read it dozens of times, and listened to it on Audible a few times.

  • Stair Fax Post author

    if i took one thing from this video it's that Frank was actually the original expert in bird law

  • OUTSIDER40 Post author

    Good job 👏

  • Ice1pants Post author

    23:33 A lawyer getting a copyright strike is a oxymoron.

  • subraxas Post author

    I just wish this video was like 10 minutes longer.
    It is such a great, great film!!!

  • jdoggg1119 Post author

    John Grisham is my fav author. I love the King of Torts.

  • Josephus Mutzenbacher Post author

    Why would any lawyer work on a contingency basis?
    No, money down! 😂

  • homeiswonderland Post author

    Thank you for adding captions, LegalEagle(s)!

  • ralujk Post author

    norma raeeee

  • greenbeancom38 Post author

    Will you do Philadelphia or To kill a Mockingbird

  • Brandon Agraviador Post author

    You should do Philadelphia next!

  • LiwenDiamond Post author

    Well, now I have to read The Rainmaker before including any semblance of trial scene in my own fiction work. Gotta take inspiration from the best 😀

  • jony4real Post author

    17:01 I really like whoever's editing these videos.

  • Mittens FastPaw Post author

    See you nerd out over this movie was a real treat. It is fun to see someone nerd out over their passion being represented so well.

  • Barry Werdell Post author

    How about doing a react to "The Verdict."

  • Debra Blouin Post author

    Objection: Could Rudy have simply echoed the witness reading the document, without asking her to repeat it? I would have been tempted, after she read the letter, to calmly look at the jury and said “you must have been stupid stupid stupid” and then shake my head sadly. Might that have still gotten an objection?

  • Josh Castro Post author

    Omg how have you not done runaway jury yet lol

  • Daniel Irvine Post author

    They must be some degree of mentally deficient to claim against a lawyer.

  • j Augello Post author

    Love to see legally blonde, always wanted to know how accurate it was, one of my guilty pleasure movies

  • ffhjbfrtjkbcx Post author

    Is it possible that the "sorry state we live in" has always been the case but technological advances and social media has made it significantly easier to catch and disperse bad actors?

  • siberiusrahl Post author

    Always loved this movie!

  • Michael Grey Post author

    A lawyer with a YouTube channel. Kinda of funny knowing how YouTube likes to flag sensitive issues.

  • Ayyy lmao Post author

    Alternative title: Lawyer fangirls over legal movie for twenty-three minutes

  • Michael S Post author

    Where would a lawyer just starting a practice get the funds to fight a plaintiffs suit?

  • Ivan Walters Post author

    13:19 – FYI the "real" Mr. Porter is portrayed by Grammy winning country singer Randy Travis, who has had his own real life legal troubles

  • inkblot131 Post author

    Moving the microphone away and then moving it closer also made the first read by the witness come across as either being to ashamed to speak up, or make it appear he was deliberately trying to keep the jury from hearing him.
    On the second read, of course, moving the mic. closer gave the impression the witness was 'caught,' (so to speak), in his attempt to prevent the jurors from hearing the statement.

  • Jukka-Pekka Tuominen Post author

    I always think that Murder One would the most accurate legal drama. Have you ever done any episodes of that?

  • Drake Christensen Post author

    The behind the scenes documentary on this movie is really good, too. It's interesting seeing how Coppola interacts with the actors.
    One instance was helping Matt Damon portray that he'd had a long walk from the subway to the deposition at the big firm. Coppola suggested Damon put rocks in his shoes, to mimic his feet hurting.
    Similarly, the character's first appearance in court in front of a judge, and he's not sure he's ready to take that leap. Outside the courtroom, the character would be very anxious. Coppola suggested that Damon imagine the he was being asked to go in that room and help a woman deliver a baby. To display the anxiety he would feel at having to do that.

  • Todd Kagler Post author

    Larry David and the well of the court… perfect place to post.

  • Edgy Ecchi Post author

    Did u review Erin Brokovich?

  • Quinn Newman Post author

    Is that Gary oldman

  • Chris Jung Post author

    You didn't note that when he went to adjust the mic, to get the repetitive statement, he asked to approach the witness. Something you don't usually see.

  • Tyler F Post author

    would love to see you react the original Ocean's 11 movie.

  • The578unit Post author

    I just had to stop halfway through this video….

    So I did and watched the whole movie and it was incredibly good. A hair shy of perfect.

  • Allegro Mk2 Post author

    you may get a kick out of 'the inquisitor' – from red dwarf. very amusing

  • Andy Howard Post author

    Case Summaries: a modern day TL;DR

  • Pop Culture Minefield Post author

    Absolutely my favorite legal drama of all time, and it is one of my favorite genres. Michael Herr wrote all the narration, which is a knock out. Thanks for the amazing break down of the film and its accuracy. Gotta love Matt Damon basically doing an impression of his buddy Matthew McConaughey through an entire film. LOL

  • SpacemanDoug Post author

    It's interesting seeing an actual lawyer analyze movies like this

  • House of Arbitrary Shenanigans Post author

    I remember watching this movie in my business law and civics class a week before we started preparing for our mach trial unit. I found it entertaining, and our teacher did show us how it compaired to actual legal procedures, but its neat hearing about some facts about its accuracy that the teacher didnt cover. Thanks for the video.

  • beirirangu Post author

    I wonder, have you done a review/reaction to "Primal Fear"? and/or done a "Laws Broken" of "Cape Fear"?

  • Stimulator7 Post author

    your channel rocks, dude. Ever gonna do perhaps plays, stories, operas, etc? (if any worthy ones can be found)

  • Kathryn Yount Post author

    I love how delighted you are when they get it exactly right. I have that same reaction when something is truly perfect.

    On the other hand…

    I OBJECT! That you appear to have ignored the first, the seminal, t.v. courtroom drama series — the one that started them all: Perry Mason. Please correct this oversight, or I shall have to hold you in contempt of (TV) court!

  • Rainey Hartman Post author

    Sleepers… I’d love to get your opinion on this movie… Brad Pitt and Kevin Bacon

  • Eric Scholtens Post author

    Objection: A movie you haven't watched in over ten years is not one of your all-time favorites.

  • The More You Know Post author

    Do The Godfather part II

  • Tyler Fun Post author

    Honestly, you could have doubled the length of this vid and I'd still have watched and enjoyed. In fact, I demand that you start doing that going forward on any "Real Lawyer Reacts" vids.

  • Alex Edwards Post author

    One i'd like to see you break down and critique is the trial of Gaius Baltar in Battlestar Galactica 2004.

  • Adohira _ Post author

    I had believed for 5 years that I had dreamed of this movie. Then I come across this movie and am like this exists. I have never read or heard the book. I am so glad that I am able to prove that this movie exists.

  • MaHumorless Post author

    A very entertaining and informative session – thank you 🙂

  • Saul Calderon Post author

    Omg. No more interviews. Freaking boring.

  • TeacherinTraining39 Post author

    What is required to sit for a Bar Exam?

  • Tony Kohanek Post author

    Objection: You mention they are under no obligation to produce the witness, however if they intimidated, blackmailed, or paid her to resign, then they do since they are guilty of witness tampering.

  • DaxLogan1 Post author

    Have you reviewed The Firm movie? Suspect with Dennis Quaid?

  • Colby Walters Post author

    Thanks for this, big fan of the channel. Just finished watching The Rainmaker, and I was hoping you would have a reaction.

  • Unbeknowist Soul Post author

    OBJECTION! Subtitles contain one typos. When you said "First", the word appeared in the subtitles when you said it, appears to reveal itself as "Fist". Lol love the video

  • Jim Blair Post author

    I enjoyed that assessment. I always wondered how some of these movies would stand up with someone who actually knew the law..(I don't).

  • Martyn Murray Post author

    I'd like to see a review of Sleepers

  • Dr. M. Hfuhruhurr Post author

    Bob Dole got us teevee in the senate re: 0:15.45~ish ( ijs

  • chris zag Post author

    such a good movie!!

  • Scott Burton Post author

    This is one of the only "legal drama" movies I have ever really enjoyed.

    Other movies I have enjoyed focused so much on the 'out of court' actions that never made their way into the legal drama. I am glad to know this movie gained the Legal Eagle seal of approval.

  • Noxxm Post author

    Objection: in the case that at 13:40 in the video, supposed the man that slipped and hit his head had a concussion from that injury? Who is at fault?

  • Mr Mackey Post author

    Objection: awesome movie, but depressing when you think of the realism and that if the first judge hadn't died the case would have been over before it began.

  • Keuthonymos Post author

    You should take some segue lessons from LinusTechTips.

  • Cyraneth Vamaross Post author

    Objection! Judge is clearly biased. ;P

  • Alchemy Phoenix Post author

    I actually thought the movie was better than the book. The book didn't portray enough tension in the trial. Great Benefit's legal team were a bunch of screw ups getting stomped on by this brilliant upstart right from the get go. They had nothing up their sleeves to shake up the trial and challenge Rudy with a curve. It was obvious he was going to win every step of the way. But seeing John Voight tower over a nervous Matt Damon really hit home the David and Goliath feel of the story.

  • Matthew Melanson Post author

    When are we gonna get How to Kill a Mockingbird?!

  • mario zaal Post author

    Thnx fore explaining.its interesting.and this you probable heard allot,you look like jim from the office(american the office).

  • Peter Post author

    Your laugh is the best! Always makes me chuckle!

  • Grim reaper Post author

    Can you cover the Drake and Josh episode where Drake get's expelled for allegedly putting the teacher's car in her classroom and they appeal the expulsion in court?

  • sorenpx Post author

    This was an interesting video. I just rewatched The Rainmaker earlier today and it's pretty cool to see an actual lawyer's take on it.

    It doesn't surprise me that Grisham says it's his favorite of all the film adaptations. I have seen them all except for The Chamber and The Gingerbread Man and I put The Rainmaker at the top. It's interesting how much more of a grounded film it is than some of his more sensationalistic stories like The Firm or The Pelican Brief.

    It's a shame that Hollywood seems to have lost interest in his work. These films were hot commodities in the 90s and then the well just dried up.

  • rcalliou Post author

    Objection!!! "Asking for a friend.", Seems like some misrepresentation, or possibly perjury! No word shenanigans! We all know you are the "friend" in question you are asking for! 🙂

  • Chip Atchison Post author

    No objection but how many other movies have you rated A+ ? I would like to watch your review of those movies. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *