Nuts (1987)

Redundant and unnecessary.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Barbra Streisand plays a high-priced call girl, who is arrested for manslaughter. The crux of the plot is that her parents hire an expensive attorney to avoid a trial (and the accompanying public exposure of her profession) by having her declared mentally unfit to stand trial. Streisand's character doesn't help herself much by behaving oddly, and occasionally violently. The film is chock full of recognizable actors, who all turn in good performances. I'm not always a fan of Richard Dreyfuss, but he does shine in this one. Also, Leslie Nielsen, who was beginning his transformation into a comedic actor around this time, was very creepy and menacing as the "victim" of the homicide. It was, to me, reminiscent of his role in Creepshow. Overall, the film is pretty good, with good acting, good photography, and unobtrusive direction.

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

I think that this movie is excellent. Barbara Strissand and Richard Dreyfuss are the best acts. I'm going to get my own d.v.d. of it. I also liked the costumes, production, directing, script, photography, plot, storyline, and realisticness and fantasy.I think that Claudia was right to stand up for herself the way she did. She was not incompetent of standing trial or assisting in her own defense. She could have used some outpatient therapy, even she realized that, but she did not need to be in a mental hospital. If there is anybody here who does need to be it's her parents. Think about it, her mother let her stepfather abuse her for years and her stepfather bathed her until she was 16 years old. The only reason she killed her john was out of self-defense. If she had not tried to protect herself he would have killed her.This was a brilliant film to bring to the screen. This type of movie does not come around very often. Also the judge made the right decision by releasing Claudia on her own recognizes before and during her trial.

NUTS was a play that was turned into this film that has a first rate cast headed by Barbara Streisand, including Richard Dreyfus, Maureen Stapleton, Karl Malden, Eli Wallach, Robert Webber, James Whitmore, and Leslie Nielson and a top director (Martin Ritt). But it has not gotten the notice it's deserved among Streisand's top performances. I will get to that in a moment.Streisand is a hooker who has been arrested for the murder of a "John" she picked up. Nielson is the "John", and his performance here is a type of throwback to the usually villainous parts he played in the early half of his career, before he demonstrated his mastery of deadpan comedy. He tries to get rough with Streisand, and in the process of defending herself she causes him to get stabbed. Taken to court for arraignment she finds her mother and step-father (Stapleton and Malden) have arranged for her attorney (William Prince) to plead guilty on account of insanity. She gets quite upset about this, and manages to punch Prince in the mouth, breaking some teeth, and making him decide to drop this client. Dreyfus, a struggling defense attorney, is picked by the arraignment judge to handle the defense.Slowly Dreyfus and Streisand find a way of working together - and find it is an uphill battle. Streisand insists that she is sane, and that it was an accident not murder. Dreyfus believes her, but has to fight a top flight assistant district attorney (Webber) who has an accredited psychiatric expert (Wallach) ready to testify to Streisand's insanity. Fortunately the Judge (Whitmore) is pretty fair minded.I notice that parts of the resolution of the story appear on the other comments on this board, so I will refrain. Suffice to say that Streisand not only discredits Wallach quite well, but she also manages to trace her choice of profession to a damaged childhood.NUTS, as I said before, did not get the exposure of THE WAY WE WERE or WHAT'S UP DOC? or THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES or YENTL as a key performance in the Streisand legend, and yet it bears comparison to them or her two appearances as Fanny Brice. Why was it ignored? I suspect it was that it came at the point where Streisand began making movies every couple of years instead of year after year, and that it was also made just before the change in Streisand film career when she turned director as well as actor. YENTL, THE PRINCE OF TIDES, and THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES were far more personal films than NUTS was. Then again, it was not the first time Streisand handled the role of a hooker. She played a similar role in THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT opposite George Segal (although that was a comedy, not a drama). So it fell into a hole in the Streisand career - and was unfairly forgotten. It should not be, for it was well made, well acted, and thoughtful about the causes of the choices in lifestyles we make. I give it "10" out of "10".