The People vs. Larry Flynt (Special Edition)
|
List Price: Our Price: $17.99 You Save: $1.95 (10%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $4.89 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The People vs. Larry Flynt (Special Edition)
Movie Review: A few comments
Summary: 4 Stars
This film chonicles the rise and fall of Larry Flynt from his poor, humble beginnings to wealthy and powerful media tycoon, and the tragedies that shortly befall him after his precipitous rise to wealth and fame.
However, he is a tycoon peddling more and more explicit smut to a conflicted populace used to Playboy and Penthouse. Hustler magazines sell out at the newstands while others watch his success with a growing sense of dread, since he is a threat to their conservative morality and views. But Flynt argues that if God himself created a woman's body then it shouldn't be obscene no matter what the religious and moral types say, and that futhermore, he should be protected by our Constitutional right to free speech.
Eventually Flynt is vindicated as the case eventually goes to the Supreme Court, which upholds Flynt's right to peddle smut under the First Amendment.
In this very well done scene, at this point there is a witty and intelligent exchange between justices Scalia and Stevens and Flynt's lawyer Isaacman, played by Ed Norton, who does a great job here. I believe this might have been Norton's breakthrough or perhaps first film, but I'm not certain of that. But this is the moral climax of the film in Flynt's ultimate vindication by the Supreme Court itself.
The film also doesn't shrink from showing the dark side of Flynt's life and character, especially in portraying his erratic and eccentric behavior during much of the film. There are several other events and issues that get addressed, such as the shooting that left him a paraplegic, his religious conversion, and his despotic ways with his top management and occasionally seemingly arbritary decisions as president and CEO.
And in his most self-destructive bent, he consistently antagonizes the judges in his court cases and finally gets thrown into a psychiatric hospital for 15 months for contempt of court during the trial resulting from his portrayal of Jerry Falwell in Hustler cartoon.
More destructive financially was that shortly after Hustler magazine's rise, he gets religious himself and starts injecting religion and morality into Hustler's approach, with an attendant drop in sales. Finally Flynt gets thrown in jail by the judge for contempt of court, after which his wife reverses Flynt's religious direction and they go back to being smut peddlers while he's in prison.
And in the initial court trial for smut, Flynt taunts the judge before his sentencing by saying the court hasn't made a single intelligent decision so far and he doesn't expect one now, and so the judge sentences him to 25 years. Fortunately, this is overthrown on appeal after 6 months.
By the way, the TV version is missing some of the more explicit dialog and a few scenes that I remember from the original movie. For example, Flynt isn't shown wearing the t shirt that said "F_ck this court" during the slander trial. However, there is considerable nudity, at least from the waist up.
Overall, a good movie with fine performances by Harrelson and Norton on the rise and fall and eventual return of the media tycoon who pushed the limits of the publishing industry to new highs (or perhaps lows) and who was ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court in a landmark case.
Movie Review: A smut peddler becomes an American icon of free expression
Summary: 4 Stars
"The People vs. Larry Flynt" clearly has two parts, because before we get around to debating the First Amendment in front of the United States Supreme Court there is the rags to riches story of how a kid selling moonshine back in the hills of Kentucky ended up creating the "Hustler" empire. Basically this is the story of how Flynt (Woody Harrelson) took the example of "Playboy" to the next level ("next" being a sequential idea that does not automatically imply transcendence). Flynt was just trying to figure out a way of getting people to come to his Cincinnati club to ogle his dancers and drink his booze, but when he pays money for nude photographs of Jackie-O and puts them in "Hustler" magazine he is suddenly selling two million copies.
Flynt's publishing philosophy is rather simple. Give the public what it wants and what it wants in this sort of magazines are articles and other content consistent with the dirty pictures because guys do not buy skin magazines to learn how to hook up their stereos (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Hugh Hefner might seek such a veneer to provide a sense of propriety for "Playboy," but Flynt is happy to wallow in the reality of pornography. Emphasizing the crotch shot made "Hustler" stand out from the competition and the content ended up as raunchy as the pictures. Each in turn would bring Flynt to trial and make him a poster boy for the First Amendment. It is this battle that justifies the title of the film and makes up the second half of the story.
This 1996 film is also divided between the messenger and the message. Harrelson was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his performance as the flamboyant and foul-mouthed Flynt. If there is a running gag in this film it is the vain attempts by Flynt's lawyer, Alan Isaacman (Edward Norton) to reign in his client in court. But there actually is a method to Flynt's madness because the first time he is hauled into court (the real Flynt plays the judge and James Carville is the prosecutor) he learns that justice does not have to be fair. If "Hustler" is obscene then "Playboy" and "Penthouse" should be obscene too, and visa versa, but that logic escapes the jury in Cincinnati and it takes an appeals court to reaffirm that the First Amendment by definition covers offensive speech even when it comes in the forms of photographs of naked women with their legs spread.
The last act of the film is given over to the message, and it seems almost fitting that when the big moment comes it is Issacman, who has been injured as well as insulted as Flynn's lawyer (he was wounded in the same hail of gunfire that left Flynn a paraplegic), who gets to stand up before the Supreme Court and explain why it is okay to publish a rauchy parody of a liquor ad that suggests the Reverend Jerry Falwell (Richard Paul) lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. It is easy to reduce the morale of the film down to Flynt's simple declaration that "If they'll protect a scumbag like me, then they'll protect all of you," but it is Issacman's oral arguments to the court and his exchanges with Justices Stevens and Scalia in particular, taken from the actual transcripts, that lay out the whys and wherefores that should make there way into reasoned arguments on the topic. When we get to the core issues that are being affirmed by this film, Flynt is sitting in the aisle peeling an orange.
Director Milos Forman's film makes it clear that those on the other side do not know that they are wrong: Issacman does not even have to try hard to get Falwell to admit on the witness stand that the "Hustler" parody is so outrageous no reasonable person would believe it, thereby destroying the libel claim. The man behind the first case in Cincinnati is Charles Keating (James Cromwell), whose name is now irrevocably linked with the Savings & Loan bailout scandal, so that those casting the stones are doing so with unclean hands of a different type. But in the end you can take clearly take the message without the messenger because it would be reasonable for some to consider Flynt neither a martyr nor a hero (certain the dark side of his life is brought clearly into the light). The problem is that when Flynt asks why he has to go to jail to protect our civil rights it is a legitimate question.
Movie Review: informitable and powerful
Summary: 5 Stars
the people verses larry flynt was a moving and powerful movie based on a true sory in so many differnt ways. free speech the main storyline and the there is with enough money minipulation in the court happens and can even turn into a circus it shows if little poeple like us had all the money our courthouse would be a totaly different place today. larry flynt is a decent man who wasent given a fair shot we just called him a prevert insted. with all the pain he has indured realy who cares about nudie pictures.Movie Review: Controversy At Its Finest
Summary: 5 Stars
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is one of the most controversial releases of 1996, starring Woody Harrelson, Edward Norton, and Courtney Love. It earned two Oscar nominations and two Golden Globe wins. This real-life film wonderfully desplicts Larry Flint's struggle to publish "Hustler", a sexually explicit magazine. He risks his freedom to prove that the bans violate the First Amendment on the US Bill of Rights, which is freedom of speech. Through every step, he causes tremendous controversy throughout the country. Some love him, some hate him. Either way, nobody can get enough of him. The plot is brilliant. The daring material expressed deserves tremendous respect for doing what few writers have dared. The climatic story keeps audiences interested in every scene, always wondering what Flint will say or do next. The unexpected events keep the energy intact. His eccentric behavior adds a more interesting flavor to the film.Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love prove that they were made for their roles. Harrelson's Oscar nominated performance as Larry Flint is the best in his career. Nobody else could have played Flint better. Love makes a triumphant film debut in her Golden Globe nominated role as Athena, Flint's wife. Her erratic behavior is wonderfully displayed through every scene. Athena's life struggles are beautifully expressed. Edward Norton's role as Flint's lawyer is beautifully performed. All other performers also acted their roles wonderfully.
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is a great film for those looking for something risque. This is sure to please audiences of all kinds.
Movie Review: Ha, this film just rules!
Summary: 5 Stars
Larry Flynt is a sleaze, and he's not afraid to exlpoit that fact. The People Vs. Larry Flynt doesn't make him look like a saint, as some have said. Milos Forman is a great director, and he takes this material and turns it into a very compelling look at a man, (who is very sleazy, mind you), that cared immensely about the First Amendment and turned the judicial system upside down. (And made and spent lots of money!) Like it or not, Flynt is a crusader for free speech in the annals of American history. Great film, and FINALLY a great DVD. However, where's the Forman commentary?