量子
缺集或无法播，更换其他线路.剧照
剧情介绍
法网边缘电影免费高清在线观看全集。
故事发生在1979年的一座工业小镇上，接连出现的因白血病而死亡的病例惹得居民们人心惶惶，大家都知道，镇上那两家整日排放着污水的大工厂和这些悲剧脱不了干系。在庞大的工厂体系面前，个人是如此的渺小，可是即便如此，失去了日子后，安妮（凯瑟琳·奎南 Kathleen Quinlan 饰）毅然决定联手镇上的8个受害者家庭，对两家工厂提起了诉讼。 没有律师愿意接受这样棘手的案例，除了胜算渺小外，他们也不愿意惹上不必要的麻烦，只有一个人是例外，他就是简斯里特曼（约翰·特拉沃塔 John Travolta 饰）。简花费了大量的人力和财力调查两家工厂的日常排水，在证据确凿之后，却因为被告方的暗度陈仓而输了官司，简失去了一切，金钱，家庭，名誉，但他并没有放弃。最灿烂的我们胖子、爱情和错误！油脂：瑞戴尔高中第一季生死门1978彭赞斯的海盗爱尚泰国粉色百合西金梦游者学校的阶梯激战2013九扇窗戶无懈可击青春抛物线2019大伯公传奇行动日赵子龙2020养鬼吃人融之堂（原声版）下猛鬼食人胎人皮客栈野马讲究 第四季节日鼹鼠之歌完结篇保罗金刚高冷姐姐霸王少爱与怪物忍者小英雄4雨夜哭与爱同屋月球陨落上海红美丽负重前行2017弗罗斯特医生亲爱的奶奶余波：珠峰和尼泊尔大地震烈血风云外滩钟声
故事发生在1979年的一座工业小镇上，接连出现的因白血病而死亡的病例惹得居民们人心惶惶，大家都知道，镇上那两家整日排放着污水的大工厂和这些悲剧脱不了干系。在庞大的工厂体系面前，个人是如此的渺小，可是即便如此，失去了日子后，安妮（凯瑟琳·奎南 Kathleen Quinlan 饰）毅然决定联手镇上的8个受害者家庭，对两家工厂提起了诉讼。 没有律师愿意接受这样棘手的案例，除了胜算渺小外，他们也不愿意惹上不必要的麻烦，只有一个人是例外，他就是简斯里特曼（约翰·特拉沃塔 John Travolta 饰）。简花费了大量的人力和财力调查两家工厂的日常排水，在证据确凿之后，却因为被告方的暗度陈仓而输了官司，简失去了一切，金钱，家庭，名誉，但他并没有放弃。最灿烂的我们胖子、爱情和错误！油脂：瑞戴尔高中第一季生死门1978彭赞斯的海盗爱尚泰国粉色百合西金梦游者学校的阶梯激战2013九扇窗戶无懈可击青春抛物线2019大伯公传奇行动日赵子龙2020养鬼吃人融之堂（原声版）下猛鬼食人胎人皮客栈野马讲究 第四季节日鼹鼠之歌完结篇保罗金刚高冷姐姐霸王少爱与怪物忍者小英雄4雨夜哭与爱同屋月球陨落上海红美丽负重前行2017弗罗斯特医生亲爱的奶奶余波：珠峰和尼泊尔大地震烈血风云外滩钟声
长篇影评
1 ) A Civil Action
这部电影在电脑里存了将近两年，好像第一次在一个完整的，不被打扰的环境里看完它。心情很复杂，要不是片尾take me to the river,drop me to the water的俏皮音乐和干净的流水与鸟鸣声，现在应该说是沉重了。
这不是一个让人所盼望的大团圆结局，虽然作为一部法律电影，它最后的主题不外乎公平正义得以彰显，当仍然让观看的人无法释怀。将一个被评为波士顿十杰，开保时捷最新款跑车，战绩斐然的年轻律师，推到最后债台高筑，被合伙人无奈抛弃的地步，面对“你拿什么证明自己的生活质量？”这样嘲讽的诘问，一个从心里坦荡而出的微笑便覆盖一切吗？Jan的合伙人说，自你把钱放到当事人桌子上的那一瞬间，事情就变丑陋了，It happends everytime!是吗？这样的事情每次都发生，一位律师可能单单为了这一次的良心安宁而放弃所有吗？况且，这位民事律师对职业价值的固有认识究竟是公平正义，还是定纷止争？在片头他们挑剔选择案源时，答案不言自明吧。一个人突然改变灵魂是多么地不真实。也许这怀疑不够善良，但我真的，真的更可能会相信这位律师是被自己不适当的诉讼策略推到绝路，而不是被孩子母亲的哭泣感动到不顾一切。
但是，不管怎样，拨得云开见日出的二审判决和Jan的微笑，还是给了人一些力量吧。
电影是根据同名书改变的，看到一篇书评，看来似乎原作更加客观现实些。来自：
http://my.donews.com/dani19/2004/06/22/%e8%af%bb%e4%b9%a6%e7%ac%94%e8%ae%b0%ef%bc%9aa-civil-action/
这不是一个让人所盼望的大团圆结局，虽然作为一部法律电影，它最后的主题不外乎公平正义得以彰显，当仍然让观看的人无法释怀。将一个被评为波士顿十杰，开保时捷最新款跑车，战绩斐然的年轻律师，推到最后债台高筑，被合伙人无奈抛弃的地步，面对“你拿什么证明自己的生活质量？”这样嘲讽的诘问，一个从心里坦荡而出的微笑便覆盖一切吗？Jan的合伙人说，自你把钱放到当事人桌子上的那一瞬间，事情就变丑陋了，It happends everytime!是吗？这样的事情每次都发生，一位律师可能单单为了这一次的良心安宁而放弃所有吗？况且，这位民事律师对职业价值的固有认识究竟是公平正义，还是定纷止争？在片头他们挑剔选择案源时，答案不言自明吧。一个人突然改变灵魂是多么地不真实。也许这怀疑不够善良，但我真的，真的更可能会相信这位律师是被自己不适当的诉讼策略推到绝路，而不是被孩子母亲的哭泣感动到不顾一切。
但是，不管怎样，拨得云开见日出的二审判决和Jan的微笑，还是给了人一些力量吧。
电影是根据同名书改变的，看到一篇书评，看来似乎原作更加客观现实些。来自：
http://my.donews.com/dani19/2004/06/22/%e8%af%bb%e4%b9%a6%e7%ac%94%e8%ae%b0%ef%bc%9aa-civil-action/
2 ) 请不要轻易错过这样的电影
因为理工科属性在骨子里，在首次观看后，我没法放弃用一二三四来阐述自己
1. 看这部电影之前，个人已经有幸看过十二怒汉，造雨人，都是关于法律，正义，和自身的信仰。A civil action，剧情没有那么多跌宕起伏，结尾也并没有大快人心，恰如我们身边的这种压抑氛围。去看这部冗长电影，也要直面眼前的沉痛与黑暗
2. 很多人玩麻将，片中的打官司让我浮想联翩，律师们在围绕当事人的痛苦和烦恼中，相互博弈，他们有技巧，有胆魄，虚张声势，步步紧逼。博得更多的赔偿与降低到最少的付出，双方都是胜利。法院此时就像极了一个棋牌室，代表的不是公平与正义，只是提供博弈与协商的庄家
3. 整部戏有很多场景，一方提出一个数字，几个零，一方摇头或点头。个人的立场随时随地都可以因此瓦解，何况是众叛亲离之时与穷图陌路的那一刻。主角在最后一场谈判里，心中可以接受的和解赔偿是对方永远不可能给出的，我觉得他不是在看到河水被污染时醒悟的，也不是想起那个家庭在去诊所的路中丧失孩子的时候醒悟的，他去谈判后被合伙人一通指责，随后挂起了执照，收拾了名片。他知道之所以他可以接受的赔偿对方不可能支付，是因为他心里已经确认，痛苦不可能是金钱能够安抚的。所以在最后，只有14美元在身，依旧坦然
4. 孩子的弥足珍贵，这是一个家庭的最宝贵财产，环境的肆意破坏，这是所有人类的损失。看着窗户外的一片灰蒙蒙，出了小区路口的幽绿色河水，相比于一份工作，个人的财产，业绩的刷新，国家的富足，到底孰轻孰重？我想请我们可爱的执政团队，不要把这么称重的问题抛给我，抛给一伙人，一个什么机构，更不要为了维护自己那点可怜的利益无视它。做一些什么吧，制定一些什么吧。二十年后的蓝天与绿水，不会为你们立碑颂扬，但足可以洗刷这之前的所有屈辱
5. 算教育类别的影片了吧，下一代都看看吧，不能改变什么，不过等他们长大了，或许会做出一些特别的事呢，绝不对现实报以绝望。
末尾了，影片可观赏性没有那么高，放在这个时代，满分并不算高
3 ) 喜欢约翰屈伏塔
片子不知道好坏，喜欢约翰屈伏塔。
另外，看了之后又一个观点，正义的维护也要通过商业的手段。
实际上，古时候的絃高就收过这样的批评。
另外，看了之后又一个观点，正义的维护也要通过商业的手段。
实际上，古时候的絃高就收过这样的批评。
4 ) 法庭永远和真相无关
每次看这样的法律片都能把人看得热血沸腾，如同前段时间看的《因父之名》也是一样。但是恰恰法律是不能热血沸腾的，庭审尤其如此，不能因为情感而控制自己的理性思维。律师不能这样，法官更不能这样。而律师尤其永远不是正义的化身。经验丰富的确是律师的一大优势，这是年轻律师无法相比的。
看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。
看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。
5 ) Some Instructions before Watching
Civil Action is, I think, one of the best movies about how American law really works. The movie is based on a book (the same name)—and the book is based on a true story.
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
(2) Tool: Discovery.
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.
(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
(7) Moral Questions
The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
(2) Tool: Discovery.
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.
(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
(7) Moral Questions
The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.
6 ) For Law Seminar
从电影角度很有价值。镜头的拍摄，对话的表现方式。情节设计很巧妙，猜不透最后的结果。很爱financial advisor~最好笑的一段是：勇敢点，把脚放上来~
表现出很多。社会等级，律师道德观职业观，measure of life，是与非对与错。
老师让我们看的时候prepare answers for three questions:
1. Would you have taken the case?
2. Would you have settled? When? How would you have addressed this issue with your clients?
3. Would you want John Travolta's character or Robert Duval's character to be your lawyer? Why?
My answers would be:
1. Yes. Because the case is definitely profitable, given the fact that two large companies: Beatrice Food and W. R. Grace are involved.
2. Yes. Out of the court room, waiting for the jury's decision. I would say that I have tried my best, but I can no longer afford the huge expenses of investigation. This amount of money is a result of cost-and-benefit analysis. Though monetary value can never compensate and redeem your loss, we have tried our best to match up.
3. Robert Duval. I don't know how much a degree says, but in this movie, a lawyer from and teaches at Harvard is certainly more chill. He knows the rules, and manipulates them sometimes. He adjusts well and 扮猪吃老虎 in the legal world. 食物链中的上游. His personality and versatility speaks for everything. I don't like a lawyer who is too easy to read, and who is too eager for cases. His ignorant pride, so to speak. 身段不够柔软。
表现出很多。社会等级，律师道德观职业观，measure of life，是与非对与错。
老师让我们看的时候prepare answers for three questions:
1. Would you have taken the case?
2. Would you have settled? When? How would you have addressed this issue with your clients?
3. Would you want John Travolta's character or Robert Duval's character to be your lawyer? Why?
My answers would be:
1. Yes. Because the case is definitely profitable, given the fact that two large companies: Beatrice Food and W. R. Grace are involved.
2. Yes. Out of the court room, waiting for the jury's decision. I would say that I have tried my best, but I can no longer afford the huge expenses of investigation. This amount of money is a result of cost-and-benefit analysis. Though monetary value can never compensate and redeem your loss, we have tried our best to match up.
3. Robert Duval. I don't know how much a degree says, but in this movie, a lawyer from and teaches at Harvard is certainly more chill. He knows the rules, and manipulates them sometimes. He adjusts well and 扮猪吃老虎 in the legal world. 食物链中的上游. His personality and versatility speaks for everything. I don't like a lawyer who is too easy to read, and who is too eager for cases. His ignorant pride, so to speak. 身段不够柔软。
7 ) 利润追逐下律师的职业价值
A civil action，在法律专业的词典里解释为“民事诉讼”，我的专业是新闻学，对法律的了解很有限，但在我看来，这部影片虽然在一些法律程序和相关知识上很专业，但其所反映出的与人性有关的内涵却具有普世的价值。金钱与良知、利润角逐与职业道德，这些二元体的对立在影片中所处可见，所以我认为与其说这是一部法律电影或是环保电影，倒不如说是一部揭示人性的电影。
作为贯穿整部影片的主人公Jan Schlichtmann，他身上所体现出的在金钱名利与职业良知间的挣扎和抉择是我印象最深的部分。最初Jan接下这个案子是因为看到了这背后可能为其带来的巨大的金钱和名声，但随着时间的进展，困难与阻力层层出现，使得现实与预期南辕北辙，Jan和他的公司也因此到了入不敷出甚至是一文不名的地步，这时候Jan的坚持就与金钱和名利毫无关联，他所坚持的是一种道德良知和职业准则，是对公平和正义的追求，是一种真正令人感动的人性。我想Jan的转变是一种在现实压力下对职业价值的重新思考和认识，这种转变也成就了Jan作为一个律师所能体现出的真正的职业价值。因此这篇文章我想着重探讨的就是在金钱最大化这种浪潮下律师真正的职业价值。
影片的开头给我留下了很深刻的印象，体现了Jan Schlichtmann在一个案件中追求金钱最大化的表现。被告为了求和解一点一点地往上加赔偿价格，而Jan Schlichtmann却一次一次地摇头，直到感觉到对方不会再往上加才喊停。这组镜头淋漓尽致地展现了基于律师自己的利益与原告利益的捆绑这个基础，Jan Schlichtmann最大化追逐金钱的表现。当然律师作为经纪人的一种，其收入的来源主要是在最大化被代理人利益的基础上收取一定比例的利润。Jan作为一名负责人身伤害代理的律师，理所应当地会不停地要求被告提高赔偿金，因为只有这样他才能为自己和公司收获高额的利润。这是律师这个职业的一种特殊性。
但在这个案件中Anne等多名丧子的家庭一再地强调他们不在乎钱，他们需要的只是一个道歉，因此才会出现当四名律师将和解的钱数告知他们时，Anne的转身离席。因为在这里，原告利益的体现不是金钱，而是一种道德上的索取。我想这也是让Jan他们所一直无法协调的地方，因为被告方的金钱和解对追求利润的律师来说可能已经足够，但对于心灵受到严重创伤的家庭来说这根本毫无作用。所以在这里出现了影片中一个最重要的矛盾。继续做下去，Jan则会面临没有后援没有朋友没有经费的窘境；不做，Jan无法面对丧子的家庭，更无法在良心上说服自己。
有些职业注定是与公平和正义捆绑在一起的，比如警察，法官，新闻记者，政府官员，因此这些职业的深层价值可以说也是一种普世的道德价值。律师这一职业也是如此，因为法律本身就是一种基于维护社会正常秩序的公平与正义的制度化，律师作为原告或被告的代理人，他们本身所承担的就是一种正义和公正。尤其在这部影片中，Jan所面对的对手是两个实力雄厚的大集团，但却为了自己的经济利益不惜以牺牲环境为代价，不论怎么说它们在道德上都是缺失者，因此在这里道德的天平是毫无意义的偏向Jan一方的。但在各方面证据都难以搜集的情况下，如何让道德体现为法律上认可的公正，是Jan的难题。他一直在作出努力，包括对地质和水文等相关专业知识的研究，而且在面对两大集团私下里对他的贿赂，他毫无动容，始终不同意和解。在这里，Jan作为一个律师，已经向我们展示了这个职业所应具备的道德良知，同时也在启迪着我们思考律师这一职业真正的价值所在：捍卫社会的公平与正义。
影片的接近尾声时，Jan在给EPA写的信中这样说道：“我有证据，但是不再有资源，不再有赌博的力量…在指控比亚特里斯公司的案子上，我没有钱，没有搭档。我还能说的是，我也没有客户…我把这些笨拙的东西都转寄给你…我甚至知道你可能不会去采用…不会像我开始时的那样去关心它。如果你决定要采用，我希望你能在我失败的地方取得成功。如果你要用钱来计算我的成功和失败，而完全撇开人们的苦难，这种算法表明…是完全失败的。不能说明的是…如果我能再知道些，现在不知道的东西，知道我失败的地方，如果我卷入这些人之中…知道所有的数字、所有的几率，所有的看法…我还会去做的。”这段话让我至为感动，从这段话中我们已经能够看到此时的Jan已经开始思考法律的价值和人性的意义，所以，在面对“你用什么来证明自己的生活质量？”这样略显嘲讽的诘问时，他才会回应出一个坦荡的微笑。
Jan最后的微笑和结尾时那首节奏明快幽默的Take me to the river让我从影片开始就十分沉重的心终于放松了下来。我想这才是这部影片所想真正表达的东西，有关人性，有关选择，有关律师的价值。
作为贯穿整部影片的主人公Jan Schlichtmann，他身上所体现出的在金钱名利与职业良知间的挣扎和抉择是我印象最深的部分。最初Jan接下这个案子是因为看到了这背后可能为其带来的巨大的金钱和名声，但随着时间的进展，困难与阻力层层出现，使得现实与预期南辕北辙，Jan和他的公司也因此到了入不敷出甚至是一文不名的地步，这时候Jan的坚持就与金钱和名利毫无关联，他所坚持的是一种道德良知和职业准则，是对公平和正义的追求，是一种真正令人感动的人性。我想Jan的转变是一种在现实压力下对职业价值的重新思考和认识，这种转变也成就了Jan作为一个律师所能体现出的真正的职业价值。因此这篇文章我想着重探讨的就是在金钱最大化这种浪潮下律师真正的职业价值。
影片的开头给我留下了很深刻的印象，体现了Jan Schlichtmann在一个案件中追求金钱最大化的表现。被告为了求和解一点一点地往上加赔偿价格，而Jan Schlichtmann却一次一次地摇头，直到感觉到对方不会再往上加才喊停。这组镜头淋漓尽致地展现了基于律师自己的利益与原告利益的捆绑这个基础，Jan Schlichtmann最大化追逐金钱的表现。当然律师作为经纪人的一种，其收入的来源主要是在最大化被代理人利益的基础上收取一定比例的利润。Jan作为一名负责人身伤害代理的律师，理所应当地会不停地要求被告提高赔偿金，因为只有这样他才能为自己和公司收获高额的利润。这是律师这个职业的一种特殊性。
但在这个案件中Anne等多名丧子的家庭一再地强调他们不在乎钱，他们需要的只是一个道歉，因此才会出现当四名律师将和解的钱数告知他们时，Anne的转身离席。因为在这里，原告利益的体现不是金钱，而是一种道德上的索取。我想这也是让Jan他们所一直无法协调的地方，因为被告方的金钱和解对追求利润的律师来说可能已经足够，但对于心灵受到严重创伤的家庭来说这根本毫无作用。所以在这里出现了影片中一个最重要的矛盾。继续做下去，Jan则会面临没有后援没有朋友没有经费的窘境；不做，Jan无法面对丧子的家庭，更无法在良心上说服自己。
有些职业注定是与公平和正义捆绑在一起的，比如警察，法官，新闻记者，政府官员，因此这些职业的深层价值可以说也是一种普世的道德价值。律师这一职业也是如此，因为法律本身就是一种基于维护社会正常秩序的公平与正义的制度化，律师作为原告或被告的代理人，他们本身所承担的就是一种正义和公正。尤其在这部影片中，Jan所面对的对手是两个实力雄厚的大集团，但却为了自己的经济利益不惜以牺牲环境为代价，不论怎么说它们在道德上都是缺失者，因此在这里道德的天平是毫无意义的偏向Jan一方的。但在各方面证据都难以搜集的情况下，如何让道德体现为法律上认可的公正，是Jan的难题。他一直在作出努力，包括对地质和水文等相关专业知识的研究，而且在面对两大集团私下里对他的贿赂，他毫无动容，始终不同意和解。在这里，Jan作为一个律师，已经向我们展示了这个职业所应具备的道德良知，同时也在启迪着我们思考律师这一职业真正的价值所在：捍卫社会的公平与正义。
影片的接近尾声时，Jan在给EPA写的信中这样说道：“我有证据，但是不再有资源，不再有赌博的力量…在指控比亚特里斯公司的案子上，我没有钱，没有搭档。我还能说的是，我也没有客户…我把这些笨拙的东西都转寄给你…我甚至知道你可能不会去采用…不会像我开始时的那样去关心它。如果你决定要采用，我希望你能在我失败的地方取得成功。如果你要用钱来计算我的成功和失败，而完全撇开人们的苦难，这种算法表明…是完全失败的。不能说明的是…如果我能再知道些，现在不知道的东西，知道我失败的地方，如果我卷入这些人之中…知道所有的数字、所有的几率，所有的看法…我还会去做的。”这段话让我至为感动，从这段话中我们已经能够看到此时的Jan已经开始思考法律的价值和人性的意义，所以，在面对“你用什么来证明自己的生活质量？”这样略显嘲讽的诘问时，他才会回应出一个坦荡的微笑。
Jan最后的微笑和结尾时那首节奏明快幽默的Take me to the river让我从影片开始就十分沉重的心终于放松了下来。我想这才是这部影片所想真正表达的东西，有关人性，有关选择，有关律师的价值。
故事拍得比例不对。。所以显得冗长且头重脚轻
很人性、很感人~ 至于我想象中的激情辩论可惜没有出现~ 胖子演技还真不赖啊~
人生大抵如此，穷途末路，峰回路转，永远不能放弃！这个国度每天都演绎着资产阶级自由化带来的神奇！
衡量一个人的生活的标准是什么？从b站弹幕来看，看完这部电影，很多人也完全搞不明白
法庭上找真相是不可能的，律师应该如何做，是该寻求调解或伸张正义。很多时候遇到的难题是无法用法律战胜，但是有坚持正确的信念，就是在前进【原著 a civil action法学院必读【美剧熟脸酱油时代
NB的人都有股子执着劲儿，最后从业10几年，口袋里只剩14美元，众叛亲离，这TM是一种什么情怀啊，太大无畏了。法庭到底是伸张正义的地方还是调和的地方，这是个好问题。
本片获第71届奥斯卡最佳男配角和摄影提名。本片的实际内容似乎不是影片标题所想表示的，也不是影片简介所提到的那样。而是表明一种工作的态度。骄奢必败。谦逊、内敛，锋芒不露才能胜利。自信一旦过了头就会令人反感。一个律师，在法官，陪审团面前骄横什么？这样做失败的只能是自己。
99年的片子…………屈哥哥我来迟了
一看开头就想到大嘴罗伯茨的那个类似的电影 米国的律师真是无所不能啊。。
导演真不愧为辛德勒名单的编剧，本片果然又讲述了一个重度拜金背景氛围下的个人道德觉醒境界升华的故事。而有趣的是，好像剧中所有主要角色都不同程度地“鄙视了金钱”？男主人公和只求道歉不屑赔偿的原告女教师自不必说，就连被告方面的格瑞斯老板都禁止在俱乐部谈交易、杜瓦尔的老律师也总拎着个破旧手提包并坚持每天个人独处时段不该被业务打扰！……三星半。
John为何有这种魔力?总觉得他每部片子完全都不用出力就能让人喜欢
lf you should fall asleep at the counsel table, the first thing you say when you wake up should be Objection.
已经屡次在电影中看见它们的身影了，在美国的社会中扮演着举足轻重的角色
开头像被强磁铁吸住，随后叙事就像带观众在竹篮里顺河水漂流，满屏金句。能看John演戏真是好。净资产14美元和收音机1台的“黄金单身汉”。当然！
7/10。英雄律师与委托人的主旋律题材，但导演没有把影片当成美国梦赞颂，尽力还原繁杂的询访证人和审前会议等过程，这在快节奏、娱乐性的好莱坞十分反常。另一方面叙事手段过于正统，倾向于法学教育片，观众最关心的是无人温暖心胸、没钱没房的主角怎么活下来，可这部分篇幅处理得很轻，缺少胜利氛围。
难得屈伏塔没演反派，应该很合他心意。
开头二十分钟以为又是美国“样板”法庭戏，律师为小人物对抗大公司，确实是，但又不全是，也讲律所为取证到处借钱的狼狈辛酸，讲法庭辩论的技巧，也讲抗争的失败，个人的落魄，挺好。
人道主义代表。超现实主义。唯一有用的是never go to trial
源于真实案例，企业环境污染致使居民区数名孩子死于血癌。年轻有为的律师开始是看到了背后巨大的利益，耗费无数经费精力却失去名利地位一无所有。但他却在这个过程中看清了法律的价值，人性情感的真义。八年抗战，终于胜利。
#美领馆电影之夜#apology is more important than money？Justice？enh.