I always remembered this scene from this movie, and i think it is such a key moment aswell. When he ends his argument/stance by saying "can someone please explain this to me.............like im a 6 year old", that shows that he is totally on the same wavelength as Denzel Washington's character
I always thought it was very sarcastic and showed that jurors are generally not very fond of lawyers of any kind, no matter what side they're on. Denzel's character had a condescending touch about him for the most part of the movie.
@@josibee3238 Joe Miller began that trial with no more power than the billion dollar heavy-hitters, so he was in no position to be condescending. He just did a better job winning over the only people in the room with winning over. He dug down to the truth, using all the tools at his disposal.. Not condescending at all.
I loved The Jury Foreman. He bought the facts in such a way that was so efficient and brilliant. It's like telling a person who was barely getting by in Algebra to do an advanced Calculus Class. They couldn't cut the mustard. Another person who was a fantastic Jury Forewoman was in A Time To Kill. Very analytical.
I couldn't agree more. One would think that only a person doing extremely well in algebra would be advanced to calculus. That would make more sense. If Andrew Beckett was supposedly a mediocre lawyer at best, as Wheeler and Associates claimed in their defense, let's say for argument's sake, that was indeed the truth. If this were indeed the case, they wouldn't have assigned such an important case to him.
@@jpx8793 Andy's former bosses had given a very illogical and ridiculous answer on why he is assigned the most important assignment which could result fame or ruin to the firm if he is a mediocre lawyer as they had claimed. Loves how the Jury Foreman uses a military analogy to explain such scenario where a mediocre pilot is assigned the most important military mission with the state of the art fighter just to see whether he can improve himself or not.
@@laminage Jury duty would be almost impossible for me. I just don’t think I could get something out of my head if the judge sustained an objection. Like just pretend for a second that the prosecution presented a “smoking gun” that would have convicted the defendant beyond all doubt, but then through some legal mumbo jumbo the defense objected and was able to get that “smoking gun” thrown out by the judge. During deliberation, I just don’t think I’d actually be able to stop thinking about that “smoking gun” even though I’m supposed to.
I love subtle things in a great movie. The jury foreman mimicking Denzel with "...like I'm a 6 year old", was such a great and simple way to show that the jury genuinely liked Denzel.
I love how the most conservative seeming juror was the most vocal about poking holes in the defendants case. He didn’t care if he was gay or had AIDs, he said it like he sees it.
He did what a juror and foreman should do, which is look through the posturing and at the arguments of the case. Which as he points out didn’t pass logical muster. You don’t put a mediocre ‘rookie’ in a key spot. It was an obvious bullshit argument by the law firm.
@@peterp2153 Exactly. That'd be like declaring a student with mediocre grades as the valedictorian of the class, instead of the one with the very highest average.
@@peterp2153 It was absolutely a bullshit argument... but what it also was is a justification. I imagine the defense's strategy was to provide the jury a reasonable excuse they could use to justify shutting down Andy, based purely on them not liking that he was gay. In that time, not a terrible plan, but ultimately, doomed to fail any logic test.
I was Philadelphia community college in 1992 when some of the establishment shots were filmed. The mural over the opening credits were from the school. Never got to see Tom though.
1:38 it's silly, but this is the only and main question that needed to be asked during the trial. In fact, it's the same question Tom Hanks had asked them when he was fired, in the first part of the film.
3 actors from this movie were in Silence of the Lambs, Andy's boss (Fbi agent with Senator) the Old man Juror ( Mortician when body is found with cacoon) and the Judge ( Guard that is killed by Lecter).
I remember seeing this movie as a child. And I truly understanding the full impact of this movie. Now watching it as an adult I cry. The state in this world and the state of humankind is such a downfall. We keep falling. Love each other. Race. Sexuality. Health. Gender. We all come into the world the same and go out the same.
Yeah, you don't send in a rookie to a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. Guaranteed ANY lawsuit brought against any large corporation will have at least 3-4 of the very best lawyers they have in their pocket. That's fact!
"We'll see you at the appeal..." That is precisely what is wrong with the court system in this country. Those who commit offenses who have tons of money (corporations and billionaires) can drag out a court case, and after that there are still legal recourses to tap.
In most jurisdictions, the loser of a civil verdict cannot appeal without first posting the entire amount of the judgment in a court-controlled trust. It may still be years before the winner sees anything, but at least the loser use the appeal time to avoid paying up. I think that's why Denzel's character wasn't fazed when Steenburgen says, "see you at the appeal." He knows there will be an appeal, but he also knows his client's money is secure for the time being. Also, in civil cases like this one, opposing lawyers have to work with each other trading documents, meeting for settlement and status conferences, and consulting during discovery. While adversaries, they often become more familiar and comfortable with each other than with members of their own firms. So it sounds like she's being snarky and busting his bubble, but she's really just saying, "see you soon at the next stage of this litigation."
@@PrestigeLearning thanks for your insightful comment. My point was directed at large corporations and their seemingly inexhaustible resources that are often used to intimidate and wear down a plaintiff seeking damages. My question to you is this: if a plaintiff is awarded a sizable compensation and the case is appealed is any of that money change hands? (I never watched Perry Mason or L.A. Law)
@@rr7firefly The big company can appeal, but the judgement can still be enforced unless they post the entire amount with the court. Typical term for this is "supersedeas bond." So yes, money actually changes hands all the time. But you're still right about the massively unfair advantage big companies have in cases like these. Also, in the "real world," everything is negotiable in civil litigation. Losers often file appeals but later offer a lesser amount rather than lose on appeal. Problem is, in this film, the suit was pursued on principle more than for money, so Denzel probably wouldn't settle on his dead client's behalf.
Yes but now imagine a small biz lost and didn’t get the chance to fight back. I would rather we give small players the resources to leverage the same type of shit corporations do
This was the shock of the movie that this guy who was smirking about the Navy comments about "correcting" the gay sailor turns out to be the best advocate for the plaintiff Wow!
My Dad had a story when he was a juror where he and one other guy had to convince the other jurors not to just blindly follow the rhetoric of the prosecutor of one dumb ass who did a dumb thing to put him away for 20 years and make them think about it about the evidence and circumstances..this reminds me of that.
@@nicky29031977 It's a different environment now, probably. But: The word "homophobia" was coined in the 1960s. I remember it being used in the early 1990s and I was hardly in the vanguard of attitudes. I think the film was better off for using simpler language, as Denzel's character used. In the movie it reassured the jury that whatever discomfort they had with homosexuality, they didn't have to agree with it or confront their attitudes to steer their attention back to the merits of the case once the bigotry was apparent. It was effective rhetoric for the situation at hand. It's easy to poke holes in the film now, but in the early 90s it made an impact.
If I was on jury duty would of been bailing eyes out because of discrimination of aids. But im glad Andy won. But im sorry Andy didn't get to watch him win his case.
They should do a Sequel to Phiadelphia where the Denzel Washington Character has a Class Action Lawsuit against several provate companies and government Agencies for Firing Workers who refused to take the COVID Jab.
Not apples to apples. Moronic logic. AIDS wasn’t infectious to other office workers. Covid is infectious and can cause harm to your coworkers. For f sake your logic is flawed.
@@matthewh.2539- Except that is now accepted that a Vaccinated Person can catch COVID and transmit it just as much as an UnVaccinated Person. The only issue that the Pro-COVID Vax has is their claim that if you are Vaccinated, you will be less sick and have less a chance of Hospitalzation. That claim is now being proven false as well. In heavily Vaccinated Countries like the U.K. and Israel, the Majority of those being Hospitalized are the Vaccinated. Also, it is not shown that taking the so called COVID Vaccine causes severe health risk like Heart Problem, and Clotting problems and also increases the chances of getting Strokes and even various Cancers.
"Congratulations! I'll see you at the appeal". Is that really sincere? Or even appropriate considering the circumstances after verdict etc. Just curious if anyone with a legal background can weigh in here. Maybe an attorney. Thanks!
Not an attorney but you also have to remember: they're doing a job and for them, the best job they can do is without emotion. Considering the verdict is to pay over $4.5 million in damages, it seems an appeal is the obvious next step, 100% of the time...and many companies appeal and extend the verdict for as long as possible, especially a law firm, in the hopes that if they do get a retrial, a lot of the witnesses will no longer be around.
I hated The Partner on The Witness Stand. I bet he was on The Down Low and he may have hated Andy for being Out & Proud. Remember how scared he was when his Partners confronted him after the Writ Of Summons. Also he played The Minister in School Ties.
Were you aware that the actor in this scene was dying of AIDS? His name was Ron Vawter. He didn't live very long after this appearance. The character was compromised by working there but at least in this scene appeared to be defending the firm but dropped a bomb, that Andy's appearance had changed in a noticeable way. What to make of the defendants is kind of a mystery, especially if you try and think about why they were homophobic, but they were hypocrites regardless. There's a dichotomy with several of them. In another instant, Wheeler (I think that's Jason Robards' character's name) starts alluding to the Bible and objecting to being personally identified as a bigot even though he can't deny his views are bigoted. And then he's genuinely alarmed when Andy collapses and calls out for a doctor. In that instant you see how concerned he is about appearances and just have to wonder if he's a decent person who has bought into a lie because of his own fears, or a true bigot who knows how to act in a courtroom. It's probably still just a guess. But the movie wasn't about making villains. It was about people finding common ground and accepting each other.
The way he said " I was afraid" I think represents those that like someone but when they have something personal going on and they find out, they don't know what to do or how to act. But you learn..just like I did.
The person who did this to Andy made a contact tracing is a Spanish-american miguel alvarez. Miguel just made a contact tracing with Andy over the years. Shame on him!
If he made you even a bit uncomfortable, he did his job. Robards was great in this role. His superb portrayal as a self-righteous bigot brought even more sympathy for Hanks' Beckett.
@@Lord_Bibulous I think I read Jason was a drunk in real life. Don't quote me on that. But I'm pretty sure. He was a great actor no doubt. Nobody could have played this role in this movie better.
Studying laws for two years BEFORE taking those law classes and being a consistent study since 2011, to THIS DAY, i belive some cases should not be allowed to appeal!!!! Cases sjch as this is one of them!!!!
The significance of the money was not that Andy would benefit from spending it, but that the firm would suffer from paying it. Therein lies the justice.
"I'll see you at the appeal." Words that have never been said by one lawyer to another after losing a trial or a motion ever. This movie was well acted and pulled on our heartstrings, but it is one of the worst ever in depicting both a lawsuit and a trial.
Esta película me encanta me encanta pero veo un gran error. Una empleada que sigue trabajando para la misma compañía nunca testificar y en contra de ellos mientras siga en la misma empresa. Acabarían con ella.
True, but like most movies of the time, it was a few years too late (unless they had told us that the story was set in, say, 1987 or 1988). By 1993, people were pretty well educated about AIDS and most knew how it could and could not be contracted, so this film really overdid the "people are ignorant about AIDs" thing. It was kinda like old TV shows depicting high school kids, the fashion was always a couple of years behind.
@@aaronwall8375 got no issue with butt boys, we need to come to a higher concept! Right and wrong! Corporation fucker him, but we now all bow too the covid. What's the difference ?
For a case of unlawful dismissal, million in US dollars was awarded. I had been unlawfully dismissed at least twice. In addition, how much shall be awarded for murder attempts, each murder attempts separately. How much shall be awarded for mental torture of more than 18 years and still counting. How much shall be awarded for sex peeping and recording at home and hotels. How much shall be rewarded for etc etc etc ............. US DOLLARS 350 millions will not be suffice.
Hollywood stopped making movies about decency and compassion. Now its explosions and conquest. In a world without war. Those "decent" movies were the glue that reminded people they were part of something greater than themselves. That taking pride in being American first and whatever else second place was good and decent and right. I weep for the Tik Tok generations.
I always remembered this scene from this movie, and i think it is such a key moment aswell. When he ends his argument/stance by saying "can someone please explain this to me.............like im a 6 year old", that shows that he is totally on the same wavelength as Denzel Washington's character
Also showed that Miller was just plain likeable. The majority of the room was amused and knew exactly what the foreman was saying.
Well done on understanding a very simple scene 👏👏👏
I always thought it was very sarcastic and showed that jurors are generally not very fond of lawyers of any kind, no matter what side they're on. Denzel's character had a condescending touch about him for the most part of the movie.
@@josibee3238 Joe Miller began that trial with no more power than the billion dollar heavy-hitters, so he was in no position to be condescending. He just did a better job winning over the only people in the room with winning over. He dug down to the truth, using all the tools at his disposal.. Not condescending at all.
It’s actually very smart if I were a juror that would’ve stuck in my head too
Kruger! He was a great actor with several small roles in films. I wish he had more. RIP. Thanks for all the happiness you have given me.
The way his life ended was quite tragic rip
He had an open mind as a juror. And about Festvis
K- UGER!
"Boy, we really took it on the chin last year."
I loved The Jury Foreman. He bought the facts in such a way that was so efficient and brilliant. It's like telling a person who was barely getting by in Algebra to do an advanced Calculus Class. They couldn't cut the mustard. Another person who was a fantastic Jury Forewoman was in A Time To Kill. Very analytical.
I couldn't agree more. One would think that only a person doing extremely well in algebra would be advanced to calculus. That would make more sense. If Andrew Beckett was supposedly a mediocre lawyer at best, as Wheeler and Associates claimed in their defense, let's say for argument's sake, that was indeed the truth. If this were indeed the case, they wouldn't have assigned such an important case to him.
@@jpx8793 Thanks for agreeing with me. I've never done Jury Duty but man can you imagine how challenging it is.
@@jpx8793 Andy's former bosses had given a very illogical and ridiculous answer on why he is assigned the most important assignment which could result fame or ruin to the firm if he is a mediocre lawyer as they had claimed. Loves how the Jury Foreman uses a military analogy to explain such scenario where a mediocre pilot is assigned the most important military mission with the state of the art fighter just to see whether he can improve himself or not.
@@laminage Jury duty would be almost impossible for me. I just don’t think I could get something out of my head if the judge sustained an objection. Like just pretend for a second that the prosecution presented a “smoking gun” that would have convicted the defendant beyond all doubt, but then through some legal mumbo jumbo the defense objected and was able to get that “smoking gun” thrown out by the judge. During deliberation, I just don’t think I’d actually be able to stop thinking about that “smoking gun” even though I’m supposed to.
The jury Foreman's an idiot! His company botched the statue of liberty job, that's why it's still green
I love subtle things in a great movie. The jury foreman mimicking Denzel with "...like I'm a 6 year old", was such a great and simple way to show that the jury genuinely liked Denzel.
Minus Juror number 10. He disagreed with the verdict.
I don’t think he liked his character, it was just that they were on the same side. Once he said that you knew Andrew was going to come out victorious.
I love how the most conservative seeming juror was the most vocal about poking holes in the defendants case. He didn’t care if he was gay or had AIDs, he said it like he sees it.
The paperback tie-in indicated he had been a drill instructor in the Marines, and was a wise man (which I agree).
He did what a juror and foreman should do, which is look through the posturing and at the arguments of the case. Which as he points out didn’t pass logical muster. You don’t put a mediocre ‘rookie’ in a key spot. It was an obvious bullshit argument by the law firm.
@@peterp2153 Exactly. That'd be like declaring a student with mediocre grades as the valedictorian of the class, instead of the one with the very highest average.
Shows that you can’t judge a book by its cover.
@@peterp2153 It was absolutely a bullshit argument... but what it also was is a justification. I imagine the defense's strategy was to provide the jury a reasonable excuse they could use to justify shutting down Andy, based purely on them not liking that he was gay. In that time, not a terrible plan, but ultimately, doomed to fail any logic test.
I was Philadelphia community college in 1992 when some of the establishment shots were filmed. The mural over the opening credits were from the school. Never got to see Tom though.
Daniel Von Bargen, the jury foreman, was such a terrific character actor.
One of the best scene i love in this movie! Also the best line "can sonebody explain it to me ...like am a six year-old"!!!!😜😂🤣😊😎👍 savage!!!👏👏👏
1:38 it's silly, but this is the only and main question that needed to be asked during the trial. In fact, it's the same question Tom Hanks had asked them when he was fired, in the first part of the film.
Logic must be fleshed out too. Moments like Walter Kenton recollecting how he treated a gay sailor during his days in the Navy were very important.
3 actors from this movie were in Silence of the Lambs, Andy's boss (Fbi agent with Senator) the Old man Juror ( Mortician when body is found with cacoon) and the Judge ( Guard that is killed by Lecter).
Same director as the silence of the lambs
I remember seeing this movie as a child. And I truly understanding the full impact of this movie. Now watching it as an adult I cry. The state in this world and the state of humankind is such a downfall. We keep falling. Love each other. Race. Sexuality. Health. Gender. We all come into the world the same and go out the same.
Exactly! Thank you.
Well said. This movie is from, what, 30+ years ago?? It seems like we haven’t made any progress as a country.
...the BEST pilot !
Hero of the Hudson!!
Finally Mr. Kruger is making some sense!
All the other jurors are off the case. They were BO-RINNNGGG!
@@outtaherephils I’m not too worried about it
Hey Mr. Kruger!!!! tell them the check is in the mail and forget to sign it.
I am crying 😭😭...in winning scene
Yeah, you don't send in a rookie to a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. Guaranteed ANY lawsuit brought against any large corporation will have at least 3-4 of the very best lawyers they have in their pocket.
That's fact!
"We'll see you at the appeal..." That is precisely what is wrong with the court system in this country.
Those who commit offenses who have tons of money (corporations and billionaires) can drag out a court case, and after that there are still legal recourses to tap.
In most jurisdictions, the loser of a civil verdict cannot appeal without first posting the entire amount of the judgment in a court-controlled trust. It may still be years before the winner sees anything, but at least the loser use the appeal time to avoid paying up.
I think that's why Denzel's character wasn't fazed when Steenburgen says, "see you at the appeal." He knows there will be an appeal, but he also knows his client's money is secure for the time being.
Also, in civil cases like this one, opposing lawyers have to work with each other trading documents, meeting for settlement and status conferences, and consulting during discovery. While adversaries, they often become more familiar and comfortable with each other than with members of their own firms.
So it sounds like she's being snarky and busting his bubble, but she's really just saying, "see you soon at the next stage of this litigation."
@@PrestigeLearning thanks for your insightful comment. My point was directed at large corporations and their seemingly inexhaustible resources that are often used to intimidate and wear down a plaintiff seeking damages. My question to you is this: if a plaintiff is awarded a sizable compensation and the case is appealed is any of that money change hands? (I never watched Perry Mason or L.A. Law)
@@rr7firefly The big company can appeal, but the judgement can still be enforced unless they post the entire amount with the court. Typical term for this is "supersedeas bond."
So yes, money actually changes hands all the time. But you're still right about the massively unfair advantage big companies have in cases like these.
Also, in the "real world," everything is negotiable in civil litigation. Losers often file appeals but later offer a lesser amount rather than lose on appeal.
Problem is, in this film, the suit was pursued on principle more than for money, so Denzel probably wouldn't settle on his dead client's behalf.
@@rr7firefly Directed at large corporations and super wealthy fake businessmen TV Show actors that go into politics!
Yes but now imagine a small biz lost and didn’t get the chance to fight back. I would rather we give small players the resources to leverage the same type of shit corporations do
Funny to see everyone at the defendant table lean forward in concern when the damages are about to be read.
A wonderful cinematic scene.
This was the shock of the movie that this guy who was smirking about the Navy comments about "correcting" the gay sailor turns out to be the best advocate for the plaintiff Wow!
RIP Daniel Von Bargen (1950 - 2015)
What do I love about the LAW. It always serves the unjust and awards them. But once in a while there is an exception.
Wonderful Denzel
So this is why Mr. Kruger left George alone after leaving on a high note.
Now they appeal it, bury the case in paperwork till Tom is dead. gotta love the system eh?
My Dad had a story when he was a juror where he and one other guy had to convince the other jurors not to just blindly follow the rhetoric of the prosecutor of one dumb ass who did a dumb thing to put him away for 20 years and make them think about it about the evidence and circumstances..this reminds me of that.
To this day, when I'm learning something new or something I have trouble understanding, I say, "Explain this to me like I'm a (4, 5, 6) year old."
So do I! 😂
"... like I'm a six-year-old!" 😊
Philadelphia is one of my all time favorite movies
What were Andrew's prior cases, and how did he do ???
It's interesting that the word homophobia is never used in this film!
During the early 90s homophobia wasn't even a thing yet. Prejudice was normality.
@@fabiogasperini5868 Looking closely at it all from a 2020 perspective the word homophobia probably wasn't even invented!
Homophobia meant a fear of a homo-sapien (the modern human).
It's almost like...it's a bullshit word made by the elite, right?
@@nicky29031977 It's a different environment now, probably. But: The word "homophobia" was coined in the 1960s. I remember it being used in the early 1990s and I was hardly in the vanguard of attitudes. I think the film was better off for using simpler language, as Denzel's character used. In the movie it reassured the jury that whatever discomfort they had with homosexuality, they didn't have to agree with it or confront their attitudes to steer their attention back to the merits of the case once the bigotry was apparent. It was effective rhetoric for the situation at hand. It's easy to poke holes in the film now, but in the early 90s it made an impact.
I like watching this movie especially when he was in the bar and he wanted to play Mr Christopher Columbus in the First Maite
If I was on jury duty would of been bailing eyes out because of discrimination of aids. But im glad Andy won. But im sorry Andy didn't get to watch him win his case.
wish you had put the word in all the titles so it's easier to search. Very intense movie. Almost too much to watch it twice.
Well if they had Andy as their defence lawyer they may have won.
Real justice
Kroeger needs Constanza to explain it to him like he’s a six year old.
1:03 to 1:11. That seals it.
Hmmm, do lawyers who lose civil cases get to conduct the appeal? I know in criminal proceedings that almost never happens.
They mentioned filing papers for reversal.
Anyone else think that was Matlock sitting next foreman? Lol
Wasn't the case this Movie was based upon- wasn't the Verdict either reversed or the Damages amount greatly reduced.
I remember thinking in 1993: "Wow! That's a lot of money ..."
It still is.
@@blaqwhole4998 not for a corporate lawyer at a top law firm in a big city. If hes only making 100k hes living in his car.
They should do a Sequel to Phiadelphia where the Denzel Washington Character has a Class Action Lawsuit against several provate companies and government Agencies for Firing Workers who refused to take the COVID Jab.
Not apples to apples. Moronic logic.
AIDS wasn’t infectious to other office workers. Covid is infectious and can cause harm to your coworkers. For f sake your logic is flawed.
@@matthewh.2539- Except that is now accepted that a Vaccinated Person can catch COVID and transmit it just as much as an UnVaccinated Person. The only issue that the Pro-COVID Vax has is their claim that if you are Vaccinated, you will be less sick and have less a chance of Hospitalzation. That claim is now being proven false as well. In heavily Vaccinated Countries like the U.K. and Israel, the Majority of those being Hospitalized are the Vaccinated. Also, it is not shown that taking the so called COVID Vaccine causes severe health risk like Heart Problem, and Clotting problems and also increases the chances of getting Strokes and even various Cancers.
I hate that lady lawyer, since 29 years.
"Congratulations! I'll see you at the appeal". Is that really sincere? Or even appropriate considering the circumstances after verdict etc. Just curious if anyone with a legal background can weigh in here. Maybe an attorney. Thanks!
Not an attorney but you also have to remember: they're doing a job and for them, the best job they can do is without emotion. Considering the verdict is to pay over $4.5 million in damages, it seems an appeal is the obvious next step, 100% of the time...and many companies appeal and extend the verdict for as long as possible, especially a law firm, in the hopes that if they do get a retrial, a lot of the witnesses will no longer be around.
Mr. Kruger saved Andy's ass....
Mr. Kruger! I couldn't place the guy.
"million", the money shot
3:01 We’re rich!
3:10 We’re broke!
I hated The Partner on The Witness Stand. I bet he was on The Down Low and he may have hated Andy for being Out & Proud. Remember how scared he was when his Partners confronted him after the Writ Of Summons. Also he played The Minister in School Ties.
He seemed like the only decent one of the four partners
Were you aware that the actor in this scene was dying of AIDS? His name was Ron Vawter. He didn't live very long after this appearance. The character was compromised by working there but at least in this scene appeared to be defending the firm but dropped a bomb, that Andy's appearance had changed in a noticeable way.
What to make of the defendants is kind of a mystery, especially if you try and think about why they were homophobic, but they were hypocrites regardless. There's a dichotomy with several of them. In another instant, Wheeler (I think that's Jason Robards' character's name) starts alluding to the Bible and objecting to being personally identified as a bigot even though he can't deny his views are bigoted. And then he's genuinely alarmed when Andy collapses and calls out for a doctor. In that instant you see how concerned he is about appearances and just have to wonder if he's a decent person who has bought into a lie because of his own fears, or a true bigot who knows how to act in a courtroom. It's probably still just a guess. But the movie wasn't about making villains. It was about people finding common ground and accepting each other.
The way he said " I was afraid" I think represents those that like someone but when they have something personal going on and they find out, they don't know what to do or how to act. But you learn..just like I did.
Nobody's got aids!!! I don't want to hear that word again
so the law firm is going to use the keep appealing till the other guy dies then
He dies right after this
So Kruger went to industrial smoothing after this?
Yes and he didn't give a shit about anything afterwards.
The person who did this to Andy made a contact tracing is a Spanish-american miguel alvarez. Miguel just made a contact tracing with Andy over the years. Shame on him!
RIP Mr Kruger!
Kruger! You couldn't smooth a silk sheet if you had a hot date with a babe.....
It was rough seeing Jason Robards play a douche character lol, I like the actor.
If he made you even a bit uncomfortable, he did his job. Robards was great in this role. His superb portrayal as a self-righteous bigot brought even more sympathy for Hanks' Beckett.
@@Lord_Bibulous I think I read Jason was a drunk in real life. Don't quote me on that. But I'm pretty sure. He was a great actor no doubt. Nobody could have played this role in this movie better.
Studying laws for two years BEFORE taking those law classes and being a consistent study since 2011, to THIS DAY, i belive some cases should not be allowed to appeal!!!! Cases sjch as this is one of them!!!!
TO THIS DAY!
Til*
No.
What good is almost $5M when you're dead in a few weeks 🤔
The significance of the money was not that Andy would benefit from spending it, but that the firm would suffer from paying it. Therein lies the justice.
Justice has been served yet still fighting the good fight against persecution
Amazing the Jury Forman actually cared,because in seinfeld he doesn't even care tha George Constanza removed his picture from his family at the beach.
"cantstandyaaaa"
Juror #10 = homophobe
My top gun!
"I'll see you at the appeal." Words that have never been said by one lawyer to another after losing a trial or a motion ever. This movie was well acted and pulled on our heartstrings, but it is one of the worst ever in depicting both a lawsuit and a trial.
And the defense attorney wouldn't be doing the appeal.
Esta película me encanta me encanta pero veo un gran error. Una empleada que sigue trabajando para la misma compañía nunca testificar y en contra de ellos mientras siga en la misma empresa. Acabarían con ella.
the stigma around this disease was and is insane.
True, but like most movies of the time, it was a few years too late (unless they had told us that the story was set in, say, 1987 or 1988). By 1993, people were pretty well educated about AIDS and most knew how it could and could not be contracted, so this film really overdid the "people are ignorant about AIDs" thing. It was kinda like old TV shows depicting high school kids, the fashion was always a couple of years behind.
Appeal, appeal, appeal until the victim cannot afford to continue litigation.
Interesting, someone has definitely been keeping score of favorite movies and hobbies of others. It’s cheating to gain an advantage don’t you think?
The sequel : they appeal it for ten years and he's gets nothing after costs!!!
The sad reality.
@@CS-er3ib yes it is, but you see it all the time, the appearance of justice!!!
Yes, but what they couldn’t take away was the legal precedent that was set by the jury’s initial decision.
@@aaronwall8375 that's the problem, legal press. What's is right, what is wrong. I don't know but do you!
@@aaronwall8375 got no issue with butt boys, we need to come to a higher concept! Right and wrong! Corporation fucker him, but we now all bow too the covid. What's the difference ?
And just like that, no one serves prison time.
$5,025,000 is not enough needed to be more
Today, that $5M would equal to approximately $10M; assuming I got the year this movie is representing correctly (1993).
Juror #10 was on the take.
1:14 "Traitor!"
For a case of unlawful dismissal, million in US dollars was awarded. I had been unlawfully dismissed at least twice. In addition, how much shall be awarded for murder attempts, each murder attempts separately. How much shall be awarded for mental torture of more than 18 years and still counting. How much shall be awarded for sex peeping and recording at home and hotels. How much shall be rewarded for etc etc etc ............. US DOLLARS 350 millions will not be suffice.
Hollywood stopped making movies about decency and compassion. Now its explosions and conquest.
In a world without war.
Those "decent" movies were the glue that reminded people they were part of something greater than themselves.
That taking pride in being American first and whatever else second place was good and decent and right.
I weep for the Tik Tok generations.
There are tons of movies about all sorts of things...
In the deleted scenes beckett gets banged by his lawyer denzel and is yelling out ‘maaarrrrr nigga’
What do I love about the LAW. It always serves the unjust and awards them. But once in a while there is an exception.